Re-Defining Racial Discrimination in America

EEOC vs.Suppose you own a business and put out an ad for people who want a job.  Many apply.  You run background checks, including criminal checks, which are perfectly legal.  You learn that some of the prospective employees have criminal records.  And you decide you’d rather not have a convicted thief working the cash register at your business or you think it’s better that you don’t hire someone with a violent past, fearing he might hit a customer or fellow worker who looks at him the wrong way. Or maybe you figure, you just don’t want convicted criminals in your company.

Question:  If you choose not to hire ex-cons are you a bigot?  Before you answer, consider a case you probably have heard nothing about – the case of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency, against BMW (USA) and Dollar General.

The EEOC is suing those companies for allegedly violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The EEOC has employed a strange new legal theory essentially arguing that criminal background checks are racist – or at least may be.

There is nothing in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that covers ex-cons.  But it does, of course, cover matters involving racial discrimination.  Here’s where the strange legal theory comes in:  Since blacks are convicted of crimes at much higher rates than whites, and since BMW and Dollar General rejected more blacks than whites for jobs because of their criminal convictions, the companies are, in the strange logic of the EEOC, guilty of racial discrimination.

Let’s be clear:  The EECO found no memos showing racial bias by the companies.  It found no incriminating e-mails.  No voicemails.  No current employee came forward and said he heard conversations among the managers indicating they didn’t want to hire black people.

None of this mattered to the liberals at the EEOC.  They were too busy playing a numbers game, a game that is part of the Obama administration’s efforts to re-define the meaning of racism in America.

They even have a name for what they are doing:  It’s a theory called “disparate impact.”  Here’s an example of how it works: If 20 whites and 20 blacks apply for a promotion in the police or fire department and none or “too few” of the blacks get high enough grades for the promotion, that, according to the theory, shows a disparate impact — and is proof of racial discrimination.  That’s the same thinking behind the lawsuits against BMW and Dollar General.

It is true that BMW and Dollar General did discriminate.  But anyone with an ounce of common sense would figure out that they discriminated against convicted criminals, regardless of race or anything else.  Yes, some white workers with criminal records were also turned down.

This is not what Martin Luther King fought for.  This is not why so many good Americans, black and white, marched from Selma, Alabama and were beaten — simply for demanding the same rights for black Americans that white Americans already had.  None of them fought, and in some cases died, so that the federal government could force employers to hire convicted criminals – who happen to be black. This is not a lawsuit for civil rights.  It’s a perversion of the real meaning of civil rights.

In fairness, the EEOC makes a reasonable argument when it says employers need to treat all these cases individually.  Not all convicted criminals are alike, after all.  The ex-con should have the right to make his case to the boss, the EEOC says, and explain why, despite his criminal conviction, he’d be a good worker.

That sounds fair enough.  We all deserve second and even third chances.  And in some cases the companies probably did reject good people who paid their debt to society and have turned their lives around.  But does this really constitute racial discrimination — especially when whites who may have also turned their lives around were also rejected?  And what about the rights of the companies?  Shouldn’t BMW and Dollar General be the ones to decide if they want to take the risk and hire a convicted criminal — instead of the decision coming from a bunch of political appointees in Washington?

If the EEOC wins its case the new rules would apply to other companies in America.  So what would happen then if an ex-con hits a customer – after the company hired him knowing full well that he had a violent past?  I’m not at all sure that “the EEOC made me do it” defense would spare that business massive damages.

While millions of Americans are focusing on the news about how the federal government is “data-mining” our phone and e-mail records, this case is flying below the radar. But this one is also about a massive federal government intruding into our lives.

Racial discrimination is already against the law, and that’s how it should be.  But this is not what they had in mind when they passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Not even close.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Creepyasscracker

    Yes your right racial discrimination has evolved , now being REALISTIC is being RACIST, lmao!!

    Blacks making up a mere 12.8% of this countries population murder more then half of all people murdered, this holds true from 1975 til 2005! LMAO!

    Over 90% of all blacks murdered are done so by other blacks, LMAO!!

    Poor blacks get longer jail time then their white counterparts for the same crime but what they fail to mention is they’ve been arrested numerous times for said crime —>DOUBLE LMAO!!!!!

    When quoting real federal crime statistics hurts their (blacks) feelings they simply call you a racist, LOL LOL LOL

    A STORM IS BREWING AND JUST BECAUSE WHITES AREN’T IN YOUR FACE, LOUD AND CONFRONTATIONAL LIKE SOME BLACKS, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, WE’RE HERE WATCHING AND WAITING.

  • smartin9

    This is a great case by the eeoc. I hope it prevails. What Bernie didnt tell you in his article was that the conviction must have relation to the job. Some one convicted of fraud won’t be a cashier, but some one convicted of a drug offence should not be denied a job in a steel mill. Blacks have all the felonies, so when you have a blanket policy excluding any one appying for a job with a felony, you are hurting blacks systematicly. No one says,”What ever you do don’t hire blacks”.They get the outcomes they want in other ways, and blanket exclusions for felony convictions provides the ends to their discrimitory means, and companies could care less if a few white trash applicant s get the shaft with a 1000 blacks. THERE IS NO VALUE FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND DEFENITLY FROM THE FAR RIGHT.THAT’S WHY YOU LOST THE ELECTION AND YOUR GOING TO LOSE IT AGAIN. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HAS EVOLVED MORONS.

    • Creepyasscracker

      “THEIRS NO VALUE FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY” that’s hilarious!

      You ever hear the saying “You gotta love yourself before anyone else can love you” lol

      Your people have ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE FOR ONE ANOTHER! Zero, Zilch….NADA!

      So gimme a break with your Whiney commentary! And stop taking out your SELF LOATHING on everyone else. It’s pathetic!

      And try not to forget you make up about 1 out of every 10 people in this country!

  • morefandave

    I agree with the bottom line on this story, but the disparate impact theory isn’t anything new. It was applied by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the first Supreme Court decision interpreting Title VII. But until this perversion by the EEOC, the prohibited discriminatory impact of a criminal history was limited to consideration of ARREST records, on the ground that they had a disparate impact and didn’t really mean that the arrestee had actually done anything wrong. The EEOC regs sensibly recognized that if the person was actually convicted, there was a pretty good chance that he or she might lawfully be deemed less desirable for employment; therefore consideration of convictions was legitimate. This change throws out that sensible distinction between arrest and conviction. It’s legally insane, but represents just a small sampling of the hard core liberal interpretation of everything that is being written into our laws daily by the fanatics employed as bureaucrats by the Obama regime. There’s plenty more where this crap came from.

  • Shane

    Liberals are freaking crazy. This is insane. So companies can no longer do criminal background checks? How about the FBI, and CIA?

  • fraudcop

    One thing to remember about prejudice. Only white people can be called racist. Black people can use the dreaded “N” word freely in a manner of anger or more often as a word of friendship or affection. If the word were removed from hip hop music, there would not be much to sing/rap about. King talked about the content of peoples character being a deciding factor in life. Skin color has become an excellent fall back point if character fails.

    • Wheels55

      If you don’t want someone to use the word (any word), don’t use it your self. Pretty simple.

  • DanB_Tiffin

    the cry “racism” means that some liberal’s feelings have been hurt somewhere.

    • plsilverman

      I guess “racism” is 1000% ended since Barack Obama became President. :) Guess what leading GOP have said in bunches (“he shucks and jives”, “his Kenyan anti-colonialism”, “He’s got his Basketball”, “Eric Holder is his bitch”, etc., since 01-20-09 does not count.

      • Wheels55

        Correct. That does not count.
        Racism is over. Even Paula Dean used the N word 30 years ago – not recently.

        • plsilverman

          something tells me she used it since…and not in an “informal” or anecdotal way with friends. Although, if Ann Coulter says it is over, it must be.

          • Wheels55

            Oh, so you are Paula’s mind reader! Wow!
            I think Ann is correct, although I didn’t know she said that until now. Thanks for the update.

          • plsilverman

            well, what can I say? I wasn’t there and neither were you. I would just suspend her for a week or whatever (if it WAS 30 years ago, etc.) But for someone to simply apologize and split and lose millions of $$$$, there’s gotta be…… If she did use that word directly and not informally, say, in the last week would you say, so what?

          • plsilverman

            you think Ann is correct? no more racism? I guess she sees Obama as the great integrationist! (Didn’t she say, “our Blacks are better than theirs”? :)

      • Keith

        This isn’t about racism, so your post was irrelevant. It was about redefining racism and the big gov’t intrusion of a very “progressive” administration.

      • Jeff Webb

        You need a little edumacatin':

        “he shucks and jives”
        This phrase is actually part of mainstream lexicon. Heck, I’ve used it more than a few times in my life, and I can assure you that nobody, black or other, took it as anything other than its colloquial meaning.

        “his Kenyan anti-colonialism”
        I honestly don’t know whether or not anti-colonialism is a common belief in Kenya or to what degree. I do know that BO’s father was Kenyan and was without question an influence on his son, and that it doesn’t fit the definition of racism for someone to use that phrase on BO.

        “He’s got his Basketball”
        Perhaps if BO didn’t have basketball as one of his regular hobbies, MAYBE it’d qualify.

        “Eric Holder is his bitch”
        See under “he shucks and jives”–exactly the same.

        Take this education to heart, and get over YOUR prejudice.

        • plsilverman

          all offensive “ghetto” references….Newt’s remark was said sarcastically, as was the rest. you are wrong. somewhat desperate to defend these “racist” remarks.
          but…I really don’t worry about. I have not been able to “block” you on this site (for me, no one else)…so be a gentleman, please no more initiation of posts in my direction.

          • Jeff Webb

            Something else you should ponder: know how you tell people that their examples of lies told by Obama are supposition and not proof?

            On this site, the only difference between GOP racism and Obama dishonesty is the latter has actually been proven.

            Stomp your feet all you want, but you’ve got nothing, son.

          • plsilverman

            to call a man a “liar” you MUST have proof. no? :)

  • Rita Carbone

    Criminal background ck’s are one of the best tools prospective employers have. The hiring process as determined by each employer should additionally incorporate identity verification, applicable performance tests, reference ck’s, drug/alcohol screening, physicals, etc. Results of the required tests should be followed up with a personal interview by skilled personnel staff. The applicant should be capable of addressing any negative findings and provide documentation of background discrepancies. All applicants are thereby given fair and equitable opportunity to satisfactorily complete the hiring process. The criminal background check as part of this process certainly is one which serves a vital part overall & not to be deemed unfair or unreasonable as part of the application process, nor the final determination of applicant’s suitability for hiring.

  • Rhonda Wilkinson

    A discriminating person is a wise person. You must be able to discriminate with good common sense or you risk becoming a victim of your own choices. Would you hire a ex felon to care for your children? Discrimination is mandatory on many levels.

    • plsilverman

      discrimination is illegal in hiring and firing. the word is not “discrimination” for a labor exchange situation. that word is ok for selecting mystery novels.

      • Wheels55

        Proof that liberals do not have common sense. Rhonda was simply stating that one must use common sense when considering an ex-con for hire.

        • plsilverman

          Something tells me a whole lotta Libs also are employers. :)

          • Wheels55

            Correct. Liberals do own and run businesses. Your point is..?

          • Keith

            Yes, and they’re just as careful… even to the point of being bigoted in the eyes of the EEOC.

          • plsilverman

            Did you ever work alongside or for the EEOC? I did. Wanna discuss the EEOC?

          • plsilverman

            I guess they are the only Libs with common sense and initiative. Along with soldiers who do not run businesses.

    • Vinton Bonner

      Rhonda, I think that you may be confusing the word ”discretion” with ”discrimination”. When looking at a potential hire for employment who has a record of some kind, it would be wise to use ”discretion” in the decision that will ultimately be made in moving forward. I understand what you meant, though. I apologize for playing the role of ‘grammar policeman’, it was done only to clear up any confusion that a future reader may have with your post. It was well said and well written, though! Thank you for your time. }:)~

  • murph

    Obviously there are people with records you would not want to hire. Violent criminals such as rape, domestic abuse, armed robbery, pedophiles etc. But our legal system has also made so many bs things criminal. There are young kids who have felonies on their records for things such as possessing “Too” much marijuana at the age of 18 or even 17. Now we all want these kids or “Adults” to get their lives together and be productive citizens but they cant get a job! How can you be productive as a adult without a job. We need to redefine what felonies are. Police like to make everything a felony now and throw a bunch of charges against the wall and see what sticks. Drug crimes non violent drug crimes should never be felonies.

  • docwhocuts

    the entire hiring process is DISCRIMINATION.
    I don’t drink spoiled milk either.

    discrimination is GOOD, when used properly.

    • plsilverman

      ok..what word should be substituted?

  • Tim Ned

    I think Phil you are a little behind the times besides the one fact you state that an employer doesn’t have to hire anyone. But when they do, and as stated in this article, and take a chance on someone with a criminal background they will now face scrutiny by the government.

    This is one more reason to seek friendlier countries for manufacturing and why more and more companies do so.

    • plsilverman

      The article is very misguided>>>and by the way, employers, usually large ones, go overseas to pay .50 per hr. and no other reason.

      • Tim Ned

        Your statement is very misguided. Although labor rates play a role, it is one factor in the buffett of issues facing American Manufacturers. Regulation and taxes are one of the more major issues. If labor was the issue you make it out to be, only China, Mexico, or Africa would have manufacturing companies since those areas represent the lowest labor rates in the world. Only China has seen enormous growth in manufacturing. The other factor American manufacturers open in foreign markets is regional issues such as distribution and localizing products. Labor is an issue, however, US regulation and taxes in many cases are a much bigger issue. I have consulted in manufacturing around the world for over 30 years. If labor rates were the only issue, half of American companies would move back to the US.

        • plsilverman

          they are not major factors for a big company. I say with respect, also, that China and other countries have Trade Agreements with us, and so we let them manufacture GM cars, etc.

          • Tim Ned

            GM manufactures in Ireland. If what you say had any substance, they would be manufacturing in the lowest labor countries, not Ireland. The reason they manufacture in Ireland along with Microsoft, Intel, and hundreds of other American companies is due to lower taxes, less regulation and Ireland is a perfect point for the European market to localize their products. This is the facts. GM is also one of the most successful car companies (Buick) in China which are manufactured there for the local market. GE left almost $10 billion in profits in Europe due to the high taxes to bring back to the U.S.

            As I said earlier, labor rates is always a factor, however, it’s only one point in a buffett of issues.

          • plsilverman

            If my points had substance? Nice sarcasm, pal. You gotta be kidding. :) We havetradeagreements all over the world. We should have more in poorercountries. Not my point. My point is that GM and Chrsyler are “back” where they belong. Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Pompous?

          • Tim Ned

            No sarcasm in my points as all. I’m pointing out the basic flaw in your post that American companies move overseas because you state it is based upon labor “.50 and no other reason”. Also just to set the record straight, it doesn’t take trade agreements to export from the US. American companies can ship anywhere unless those countries are embargoed such as N. Korea and Iran. This is my area of expertise and just setting the record straight as to why companies manufacturer overseas.

          • plsilverman

            ok…how about the primary reason is the bottom line..followed by stuff like trade agreements…and corporate raids of struggling, not failing companies?

  • FloridaJim

    “disparate impact” is another of the Saul Alinsky , change the word change the dialog tactic, of which Democrats and law professors have mastered it always ends badly for the opponent since the media blindly follows the Democratic lead.

    We should be, able to hire whomever we wish whenever we wish and if we can’t find or hire an employees raise the salary or raise the benefits or give him something to attract the person you want. No one should be forced to hire anyone they do not want. Try to work for a black company and you will see color is important to them more so than whites. Try it with a Mexican company.

    I saw and participated in a great many diversity “arrangements’ at large companies most failed miserably with poor employees who thought they were privileged and did not work out well. Either they left, got fired or the manager left in the night. I believe many “journalists” [laughingly called by this euphemism] who are writing columns today only because of their color or their politics not the quality of their work .MSNBC,NBC,CBNS as examples.

    • souvoter

      EVERYTHING today is political driven and the hyprocrat democrats have made it so.

      • plsilverman

        yeah, the GOP, driven by the Kochs, Crossroads, ALEC and Newcorp. are as pure as the driven snow.

        • Keith

          Might wanna examine the number of corporations who’ve contributed to the Obama campaign AND the amounts they donated. You can start with GE and the relationship Geoffrey Immelt has with this current admininstration.

          Corporations are opportunistic, not ideological.

          • plsilverman

            yes, GE is huge with Dems as are Lawyers and Hollywood, blah, blah, blah. the GOP has the defense industry, healthcare giants and energy. Left has Soros; Right has Kochs. yeah, too bad Lockheed and Cheney’s favorite Halliburton like manufactured wars.

    • plsilverman

      sounds mildy racist: “only because of their color”? will be reported.

    • plsilverman

      yeah…the counterbalance are the 340 32 year old Caucasian bleach blondes on Fox.

  • Jim

    The federal government is involved in “disparate impact.” every time it denies a gun sell due to past criminal convictions.

  • sjangers

    It’s hard to see how BMW and Dollar General are guilty of racism. Clearly the racist behavior here lies with the US and state governments for convicting too many members of minority groups of crimes.

    • souvoter

      maybe too many members of minority groups commit crimes……

      • Darren Perkins

        Maybe too many members of minority groups can’t afford adequate representation which is not fair either. In our justice system you get as much justice as you can buy. Just ask OJ. If he were any run of the mill black guy he’d be on death row. It’s not racially motivated but definitely has a ‘disparate impact’ on those who can’t afford a quality legal defense which are often minorities. Something to consider.

        • souvoter

          works both ways; he should be on death row.

        • plsilverman

          “any run of the mill black guy” is racially charged and will be reported.

          • Darren Perkins

            How is that racially charged? Perhaps ‘average’ would make you happy or is it that I didn’t refer to the race as ‘African American’. You truly mystify me.

          • plsilverman

            “average” and “run of the mill” are very offensive. the way to express it would be to say, money does affect verdicts. A rich person of any ethnicity can in most cases, “buy” a verdict. simple.

          • Jeff Webb

            No need to be mystified, Darren. Silverman is just playing a petty little game. He gets a kick out of using the race card to toy with others.

            Seriously, the guy would call a Yield sign racially charged if the mood struck him. Don’t take him too seriously.

          • plsilverman

            why the 3rd party sarcasm? But I admit I’m envious….you have made a diligent study of race relations and have determined there is no more racism (except from the Left) and if there is any from the Right, give them a pass. Must be very comforting to be able to take racism so lightly.

  • D Parri

    Affirmative Action IS racial discrimination. It is intended to be corrective. However, there is very little support ever given to imposing limits upon these corrective measures. Without acknowledgement and curtail of AA guides, the reverse discrimination monster raises its ugly head–although EEOC does not choose to view it as discrimination in the least.

    • plsilverman

      No. Affirmatuive Actuion was not originally cionceived as a means of hiring MORE or a CERTAIN AMOUNT of amn ethnic group. That came in in 1971 with “quotas”. I was an Employer Advocate for over 30 years and had special training in ensuring that the program was done correctly – no pressures on the employer. The employer NEVER HAS to hire anyone. They only have to cast the widest recruitment net. But..to repeat the Nixon adm. felt that A.A. was moving too slow.
      It appears that, over time, “White women” benefitted more than African American women and men. It’s possible that Nixon saw that the program needed to “catch up” and include everyone.

  • Chuck_Borealis

    By the same reasoning, the NBA discriminates against short people, and should be sued by the EEOC.

    • Darren Perkins

      The NBA discriminates against people who can’t play basketball at a high enough level. Spud Webb was only 5’8″ but won the dunk contest.

      • docwhocuts

        stop it. absurd argument.

        • Darren Perkins

          Well maybe it’s not a good argument… but they have had some short players.

    • plsilverman

      nah….sports and show business and modeling, etc., can choose as to physical proportion.

  • Dukhooker

    As there is absolutely zero evidence of a racial component in the hiring decisions of the two defendant companies, this case is D.O.A. ………..unless of course (and this is what the EEOC is betting on) it winds up on the docket of one of the hundreds of left-wing lunatics on benches around the country.
    This makes me want to run out and buy another BMW this very weekend!

  • allen goldberg

    Another example of why Barack Obama is not anyone who understands any of this because he is American. HE THINKS, he is the Chosen One and is acting in this manner, and is leveraging total nonsense to define things as HE sees fit.

    • plsilverman

      wanna rephrase? and be specific?

  • D Parri

    //

  • D Parri

    Why should it not be the right of an individual who has risked his own assets in developing a business to make the decisions he or she feels is necessary to protect those assets and provide the best possible vantage to the venture they have undertaken.

  • D Parri

    Each one of us
    theoretically begin with a ‘clean slate’. In time we normally build or develop
    a reputation which helps identify us to folks who know nothing about us
    otherwise, and they need to make a decision concerning whether to employ or
    utilize our skills in some manner that may place them at risk.

  • D Parri

    At no point in this evaluation does race become a factor when considering a
    person’s prospects as an employee. Their past histories absolutely–without doubt–are pertinent. A history which shows (or even indicates) change from a path of crime towards a real and honest effort in building one’s reputation can help mitigate those less-than-desirable events which often are recorded as a criminal record. Likewise, a completely opposite direction of events would be seen accordingly.

  • D Parri

    Now, if it is my assets on the line, then it should be my right to make whatever decisions I feel is necessary for the well-being of my assets. I will challenge the EEOC or anyone else to show me where I do not have those rights to utilize my own judgment at my own risk in whatever legal business venture with my own assets on the line.

    • http://1389blog.com/ 1389AD

      I would argue that if it is your own assets on the line, that you should have an absolute right to discriminate any way you please with regard to hiring. Those of other races can, and do, discriminate also – and they get away with it cold.

    • allen goldberg

      Sorry, your government does not feel that way. They think they have the right to dictate to you what and who you can hire.

      • plsilverman

        an absolutely ridiculous statement. I worked as an Employer Advocate/Job Finding Specialist for three decades and I never saw an employer FORCED to hire ANYONE. f there is any “impetus” it is on the employer getting special Federal or State funds…then they must list with the Employment Service. THAT IS IT. as far as doing on-the-job training of various criteria it is their choice.

        • Wally C

          Might want to look a little harder. When I worked for a paper company in SC, one government agency(can’t remember which one) made them hire more blacks, because they did not have the same racial make-up as the area! The safety record went down the tubes because the company was forced to hire less qualified workers.

          • plsilverman

            yes, after 1971, and the “quotas”, not part of the original program, this was a typical situation. unfair to all.

          • plsilverman

            ……I do not think a Government worker showed up to examine the books and the breakdown of ethnicities. At the time I worked as an Employer Advocate, I recall exactly *one* incident where an employer begged me to send him more of a certain group (apparently his “ratio” against the population was off). I told him I send whoever is qualified. Most likely, he panicked because he thought his on the job training contracts would wane and his tax relief would stop.
            If a “government agency” would order an employer to hire a minority individual over *another* minority individual, that would have been a “political” disaster. Not to be flip’ on the situation.
            But I’m getting the sense from Bernie’s piece that (he fears that) all kinds of gov’t intervention along these lines is imminent ….and it is not.

  • D Parri

    The numbers can be used to support virtually any story one desires to tell. I.e., statistics can be used to paint any picture. The fight against racial discrimination was a worthy fight, and it still is a worthy endeavor when race is used to discriminate against others–black, white, red, green, or purple. However, when the proper focus is lost and the
    issue is used to manipulate others for a self-serving purpose, then it can hurt
    rather than help those who need a hand in simply leveling the playing field.

  • D Parri

    Since when will the moderator of this blog refuse my post when commenting upon the subject being discussed here? I’ve tried to post it three different ways, but keeps getting shot down. What gives?

    I’ll try it again here.

  • D Parri

    The numbers can be used to support virtually any story one desires to tell. I.e., statistics can be used to paint any picture. The fight against racial discrimination was a worthy fight, and it still is a worthy endeavor when race is used to discriminate against others–black, white, red, green, or purple. However, when the proper focus is lost and the issue is used to manipulate others for a self-serving purpose, then it can hurt rather than help those who need a hand in simply leveling the playing field.

  • D Parri

    At no point in this evaluation
    does race become a factor when considering a person’s prospects as an
    employee. Their past histories absolutely–without doubt–are
    pertinent. A history which shows (or even indicates) change from a path
    of crime towards a real and honest effort in building one’s reputation can help
    mitigate those less-than-desirable events which often are recorded as a
    criminal record. Likewise, a completely opposite direction of events
    would be seen accordingly.

  • D Parri

    Now, if it is my assets on the line, then it should be my right to make whatever decisions I feel is necessary for the well-being of my assets. I will challenge the
    EEOC or anyone else to show me where I do not have those rights to utilize my
    own judgment at my own risk in whatever legal business venture with my own
    assets on the line.

  • Shane

    This is freaking insane! Liberals will do whatever it takes to get the votes of blacks and Hispanics, even something as insane as this.

  • Cecilio Mendez

    I am speechless… well; no, I am not. Is just that what I will say can not be placed in this media. “Whiskey”, “Tango”, “Foxtrot”!

    • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

      Nice. Communications code is a beautiful thing, no?

      What service were you in . . . Army?

      Just when you think you can’t say something because of an obligation to keep it respectful, the thought suddenly occurs to you that the long version of “bravo” “sierra” (or some other expressive expletive) is the appropriate response!

  • D

    You might want to look into the fact that felonies are technically a
    disabled worker. The can get a certificate from a relief of disability. So they are discriminated for being disabled.

    • Wheels55

      Interesting.
      Criminals are stupid, or at least acted that way at one time. It is not illegal to avoid hiring the stupid. This is why we have a large government – so those people can have jobs too.

      • plsilverman

        gee, that’s new…hiring a convict to fill a civil service job, as if it’s an application criteria with equal weight as Educational level. learn something new every day!

        • dave davies

          I think it was a joke, Phil.

          • plsilverman

            “It”? Bernie’s commentary? not following you.

          • dave davies

            You were replying to Wheels55’s comment. Try to keep up.

          • plsilverman

            darn. sure it wasn’t “D”? ok. I’ll try to keep pace with you eager beavers.

  • ksp48

    Symphony Orchestras, as an example, usually listen to music played by applicants in a blind testing. The applicant plays behind a screen so there is no possibility of discrimination based on race. Under ‘disparate impact, they could still be called racist and in violation of the law. As one poster says, only by looking at race and discriminating based on race can they be assured of not being “racist”.

  • TS1776frdm

    This happened to me-a small business owner. We did handle between $15 and 20 Million dollars worth of someone elses livestock. I was sued for not hiring Hispanics-which had no job skills to drive a feed truck (accounting skills were needed) or do cowboy work. I countersued asking the organization to underwrite all Hispanic employees-keeping in mind that defecating in feed bunks or not keeping perfect track of feed could cost us millions. Court said it was a logical request. They backed down. Never heard from them again…

    • nickshaw

      Good for you, TS!
      Of course, the point is it’s not incumbent on any business owner to have to explain why they are NOT racist. ;-)

      • plsilverman

        has never happened…never will. when the GOP came up with “quotas”, 4 years after Affirmative Action, (1971) then it’s very possible many smaller employers panicked and said to the local Job Service, “I need more Black women!!!!”. (not to sound flip’ about the situation).

  • D

    What about if a first time non violent, non drug offender is denied a job because of his background even though it has been more then 10 years and it is their first and only time they have been in trouble. We make them pay for their crime but then continue to penalize them for the rest of their lives.

    • Ksp48

      Right or wrong, that has nothing whatsoever to do with racial discrimination. Right or wrong, why should a company have to spend more time and effort to pick the truly rehabilitated from the not truly rehabilitated. If the Company wants tyo hire only people whose last name begins with the letter q, it can. However, it may not discriminate on the basis of race, which they did not do here.

    • nickshaw

      In my experience, as a boss and company owner, a man or woman who admits past transgressions openly and has qualifications equal to others, no matter the person’s color, has a leg up over the competition.
      Maybe it’s me. I have a thing for honesty.

    • Shane

      Not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about an insane policy by liberal government drones to protect their precious minority voters.

  • nickshaw

    Perhaps a background check of all the employees under the umbrella of the EECO are in order?
    How much do you want to bet there are not too many with criminal histories, if any.
    You know, apart from those who haven’t been caught yet.
    Like Nutroots and it’s sparse attendance by minorities (because it’s not mandated, I guess) lib’rul leaning organizations, which includes all federal government bodies oddly, never practice what they preach.

    • plsilverman

      sounds mildly racist…EEOC is an org. to review complaints about discrimination, it is a gov’t agency, and is known to hire African Americans. “caught yet”?

      • nickshaw

        Oh Jeez! Like every lib’rul ever, the first thing you think is that I’m referring to only the black employees.
        Can’t you give it a rest?

      • Jeff Webb

        Pathetic.

        You’re so desperate you’d find racism in a sheet of plywood.

        • plsilverman

          If I find it….then it’s significant, esp. on a site that purports to be fair and balanced. I guess it really does not exist right of Center.
          But why do you say “racism” when I say “racially charged”?
          All due respect, but who’s being desperate here? :)
          By the way,Should I add “desperate” and “pathetic” to your setlist?

          • Jeff Webb

            “sounds mildly racist”
            That is exactly what you said, not “racially charged”. You trying another diversion?

            “If I find it….then it’s significant, esp. on a site that purports to be fair and balanced.”
            On the contrary, you didn’t find anything even remotely racist, making your accusation utterly insignificant. And quit with the strawmen already; if this site weren’t fair & balanced, you certainly wouldn’t see your comments stay posted in the first place. Speaking of which, they’re always welcome here, that is until you throw your B.S. race card at one too many people and mgt has to address the complaints.

            “All due respect, but who’s being desperate here?”
            You.

            “By the way,Should I add “desperate” and “pathetic” to your setlist?”
            Not yet. Let’s do that when they’ve had the same # of appearances, and end up meaning as little, as your various accusations of racism. Yes, it could take quite a while.

          • plsilverman

            ok, let’s review: SOUNDS….MILDLY……..
            gotta say, there’s a certain defensiveness going on around here. if someone writes, something has a racial quotient…then the insults fly in my direction for weeks. why?
            good luck on your setlist. :)

          • Jeff Webb

            Okay, I’m going to tell you again, so sit down, pay attention, grab a box of tissues, and have a close friend ready to give you a shoulder to cry on. Here it is:

            As much as you’d like it to be the case, YOU AREN’T SEEING ANYTHING RACIST, OR RACIALLY CHARGED, ON THIS SITE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD, AND DEAL WITH IT.
            Whatever insults you get you have earned, kiddo. You may not think so, but falsely accusing people of being bigots is an evil thing to do. In that regard you’re no better than an actual racist.

          • plsilverman

            what is “[Obama is] the alfalfa and the omega” as published here? I can go on..and on. All a disgrace to BG. I sense over-defensiveness on the part of several posters here.

          • Jeff Webb

            “what is ‘[Obama is] the alfalfa and the omega’ as published here?”

            Unless the person who posted this told you it was about race, you’re even more nonsensical than the post itself. Please explain what makes it in any way racist.

            “I can
            go on..and on. All a disgrace to BG.”

            This actually makes sense. The way you go on and on is indeed a disgrace around here.

            “I sense over-defensiveness on the
            part of several posters here.”
            And given the way you sense racism, you haven’t exactly earned the right to be this smug.
            Your accusations may be a joke, but you’re still doing an evil thing leveling them against others. Don’t confuse over-defensiveness for anger at your rotten attitude.

          • plsilverman

            You really don’t know about the African American character in those old two reelers? Please do not initiate posts to me here any more.

          • Jeff Webb

            Either you’re ignorant or you’re insulting my intelligence again–Alfalfa was the skinny white kid with the cowlick. See what I mean when I tell you you only see racism because you WANT to find it?

            I’m a representative of this site. If you don’t like your phony racial indignation being challenged, you picked the wrong place to try it.

          • plsilverman

            nice try, bud’…I’ve only replied to your replies. The African American character was basically “equal” to the whites in those films but to refer to Barack Obama as “Alfalfa” is denigrating, as he is a man and the character was a child and the child dressed and appeared in a stereotypical way.

          • Jeff Webb

            Okay, let’s see…your need to play the race card made you so blind you mistook Alfalfa for Buckwheat. You thought you had proven me wrong and I’d back down. I proved YOU wrong and embarrassed the crap out of you. And now you post this and make yourself look like an even bigger idiot.
            Son, you’ve been embarrassed enough. You’re going to have a helluva time getting back on that high horse if you keep digging yourself deeper.

            Run along now and quietly tend to your wounds.

          • plsilverman

            gotta say pal, you really got me here: the original poster says Alfafla and my entire argument, my entire idealogical agenda (?) is cast to the winds. I apologize profusely. I’m deeply sorry.
            But something tells me that “Buckwheat”, an African American, was in the mind of the poster. I don’t know. Just a feeling.
            I must be playing the “racecard”…. to myself!
            Yes, I am very embarrassed.

          • plsilverman

            I think the original poster did the “mistooking”.

  • Gradivus

    To avoid conviction you must adjust your hiring according to race to make sure you have enough of each “suspect group.” Just one of many examples of totalitarian government newspeak in today’s America: If you refuse to discriminate on the basis of race, you will be convicted of racial discrimination.

    • D Parri

      So, why is reverse discrimination corrective? I wonder when the pendulum will finally swing back in the opposite direction.

      • Gradivus

        It isn’t, and with the current system, it won’t.

    • plsilverman

      why make a joke of this serious issue? I worked alongside EEOC for years and they very professionally handle each “complaint”. and by the way, there is NO pressure to hire ANYONE….other than in situations where extra tax dollars are invested in employers…then the “affirmative action” umbrella is drawn.

      • Gradivus

        How you can think I was making a joke, is beyond me.

  • Stimpy

    How about we address a root cause rather than an after effect. How many of these ex-cons were collateral damage in the war on drugs? How about ending the war on drugs and consider this a behavioral or addiction problem. Might even end our dubious distinction as having the highest proportion of our citizens incarcerated. Might even end the narco wars in Mexico.

    • courage the cowardly dog

      So if I refuse to hire drug addicts or drug abusers or distributors am I guilty of racial discrimination if it turns out that that more minorities are involved in these things than whites?

      • nickshaw

        Apparently, CTCD.
        You know, ’cause it was white people that made the laws then forced the drugs on the minorities so, it’s our fault anyway.

      • plsilverman

        there is no gov’t program which ORDERS an employer to hire from any such criteria….the employer can agree to hire and train and co-monitor an individual with a conviction…there is NO pressure to do so.

    • ksp48

      How about we stay on issue. What does that have to do with Corporations doing criminal background checks being legally accused of racism.

  • profchuck

    If the doctrine of “disparate impact” is to be applied then it should be applied across the board. For example, In a study of abortion statistics a disproportionate number of poor women receive abortions and of those a disproportionate number of “women of color” receive abortions when compared to the population at large. Is this an example of “disparate impact”? It may even be an example of defacto eugenics. If so, whose ideology is behind such a thing?

    Or consider the medical condition known as sickle cell anemia. Blacks are disproportionately victims of this blood disorder. Is this an example of “disparate impact”? And, if so, who is at fault? Who should be sued or jailed?

    These are but two examples of what happens when political ideology is substituted for rational behavior. Critical thinking used to be encouraged in academia but now it is actually considered anti-social and dangerous. When we manipulate what would ordinarily be considered logical thought processes and insist that politically correct thinking trump rational mental activity we have not only lost the battle of words but the battle for humanity its self.

    • ksp48

      The most blatant disparate impact I’m aware of is in the NBA. Hiring based on talent there produces almost entirely one race rosters. Each team should immediately be forced to hire 5 more white guys.

  • GlenFS

    These are the same do-gooders who crashed the mortgage loan/real estate market by suing banks for denying loans based upon ability to repay. Disparate impact, no doubt! I guess they’re not content to have ruined the economy, they still have more goodness to spread.

    • nickshaw

      In fact, they are re-pushing the exact same policies today!
      One has to wonder exactly who has the best interests of America at heart, no?

  • pupster40

    It’s too bad you can’t fix stupid, the RINOs are in need of an overhaul. The progressives are permanentely FUBAR!

  • http://www.manilatop10.com/SpecialOffers.html manilatop10

    Please translate this write into Arabic, French and perhaps most importantly German so all of the Bavarian Motor Works employees can get up to speed on the impact of disparate impact drivers and perhaps all those Turned Down for employment can get to work on building an AutoBahn that spans the North Coast under Buffet-Care carefully of course so as not to commit any environmental crimes but I digress from the start…

  • BonnieU2T2

    In 1965, I applied for a job at The Telephone Company in Los Angeles, and had to take a pre-employment test in a large room full of applicants. I was the first one to finish the test. When I turned in my paper, and asked the clerk how long it would be before we might know who was getting the jobs, she told me not to count on it because they were only hiring minorities. That’s how far back all this nonsense goes. I knew it was grossly unfair, but just moved on and got another job. I didn’t whine and scream “Discrimination!” even though I knew that the person that leaned over to me 5 min. after the test started and asked “Where did she say to put our names on the paper?” was going to make a fine employee!

  • NJNuke

    This is just one more reason why companies, if they can, would prefer to contract labor rather than hire employees. I can tell a contractor I don’t want a certain person for any reason and not be subjected to EEOC nonsense like this.

    • nickshaw

      I’m not so sure a company could get away with what you say but, could you keep it down?
      Don’t want to give them ideas!

  • BonnieU2T2

    The Obama Administration is hiring thousands of employees called Facilitators or some other buzz word to enroll people in Obamacare. They are being trained as to how to “sign people up” for Healthcare, and oh, by the way, “help” them register to vote. Think I will test this “disparate impact” theory by applying for one of those jobs! I have an insurance background so I should be a shoe-in to get a job, right? I’m sure that being a white Conservative Christian Tea Party member, female would not work against me! The new “definition” of discrimination in America is “If you are not Black or a Democrat, get in the back and shut your trap”

    • nickshaw

      Didn’t Skeeter already say we’re the ones that need to get to the back of the bus?

  • FreeRuss

    Bernie,

    This theory of disparate impact and racial discrimination could be applied to background checks for the purchase of guns (and ammo if you live in CA) too.

  • Iklwa

    It took a liberal education covering as much as a decade and costing scores of thousands of dollars that will probably never be paid back for someone who has never had a real job, never run a business nor has any desire to run a business to come up with the term “disparate impact”.

    These are the fruits of what a liberal inculcated legal team produces as “social justice”.

    No doubt these folks go home at night, snap their suspenders loudly on their chest and proclaim victory over “The Man”, proud that they have fought what their professors would call “the good fight”.

    (I hope I wasn’t being too sexist about the suspenders thing. I guess if garters were still in fashion, they could be snapped as well.)

    You know of whom I speak: white, industrial, corporate, middle-aged business folks…the people who paid the taxes to educate the very lawyers who now would hound them to the grave in the name of “fairness”.

  • JSVN67

    Well Berny all I can say to this is $@!#. It is what our Country is coming too. If it feels good, do it, the outcome be damned. A fine house of cards we are building for ourselves wouldn’t, you say.

  • UsedToHire

    I once had a call from the EEOC telling me there were bringing over some hiring candidates. Of course they were not REALLY the EEOC but I assured them I’d be glad to talk after reviewing their credentials. I told them I was it was fortuitous that they called because I had several toilets that needed a good cleaning. No one showed up.

  • Ted Crawford

    This “Lawsuit is Idiotically disingenuous on it’s face! It should take any Judge or Jury only seconds to render that verdict! It does display just how little the Progressives think of the intellectual abilities of their constituents! I can’t believe that even the dingbats at EEOC, actually believe this tripe!

  • soundnfury

    This is just an extension of the insanity that civil rights has morphed into under the current liberal-speak. This is no different than the Community Reinvestment Act that made it illegal for banks to discriminate against applicants with low or no credit (using the same argument of disparate impact in the AA community), and we all know where that little adventure took the country.

  • Jorge

    Bernie, this falls in line with the argument Michelle Obama made on her thesis paper, that debating blacks was not fair because they are not equally educated as blacks.

    • jorge

      I meant not equally educated as whites

    • nickshaw

      I haven’t read it (nor am I likely to) but, it seems like an odd thesis coming from a black woman “equally educated as a white”.
      Unless of course, she recognized she was only in university due to her color and probably wouldn’t have made the cut without racist “equal opportunity” laws.
      That couldn’t be it, could it?

  • CharlieFromMass

    While the circumstances around each individual refusal to hire someone wasn’t disclosed in this article (and may not be public knowledge), a business does have a prerogative to not hire someone it feels would be a hazard to the safety of its property or employees. Even if that means a blanket “no felons” policy. It’s fair in its heavy-handedness, despite being perhaps a bit much.

    BMW has expensive cars and parts at its factory. Dollar General has lots of small items and cash on hand. Even for someone trying to go straight, these may prove too much temptation for some, and as a result, it’s best to be safe.

    Another action of Oblunder-Rama that I hope gets tossed.

  • Patty

    Businesses are being discriminated against, obviously. Society has been so ‘dumbed down’, it’s like working for and thinking like criminals, et.al. We are governed by that ilk and it’s putting many ppl. in a bad light as they act on instinct and information that keeps businesses running as they should. Our RIGHTS are being violated by ppl. who fall for this tripe and put it on others, which is rotten and bigoted in itself.

  • Neal from PA

    “Racial discrimination is already against the law, and that’s how it should be. But this is not what they had in mind when they passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    Not even close. It’s a perversion of the real meaning of civil rights.”

    Absolutely…enough said…how to turn lies into make believe truths!

  • Jim Pell

    If this theory of “disparate impact” were valid, it would apply in areas other than those favored by EEOC. Try applying it to the burden of taxation by race, or the incidence of violent crime by race, or the educational and professional achievement by race, and you will conclude that EEOC is acting, however well intentioned, in an ideological campaign of artificial social engineering, the lingering dregs of the “Great Society” that has destroyed minority confidence, minority ambition, minority families, and minority achievement.

  • Drew Page

    And where would the EEOC be when a company is sued by the family (s) of a victim(s) who was killed by an employee of that company, who happened to be an ex-convict convicted of armed violence in the past? Where would the EEOC be when a school district/bus company is sued by the parents of children killed in a bus accident, driven by an employee known to have been previously convicted of several DUIs?
    Would the EEOC come to the legal defense of these employers that knowingly hired employees previously convicted for crimes such as armed violence, domestic violence, armed robbery, DUI, pedophilia or child molestation? Would the EEOC be prepared to sue the Bar Associations of the various states for refusing to give a convicted felon a license to practice law? Would they be willing to file suit in federal court against the FBI or other government agencies for refusing to hire convicted felons?

    • Charlie

      Very well put as far as the bar association is concerned. Do lawyers, the greatest portion of our politicians, really think their profession is so important as to legally exclude convicted felons yet the rest of us have no need of such standards that would be acceptable to our almighty leaders. Disgusting attitude. Disgusting government functionaries.

    • CharlieFromMass

      Some very good questions…ones I hope we never need to have answers for.

  • beniyyar

    Obviously this is not a situation for the EEOC to be involved in, and yet, since everything in the US is judiciable or at least liable to bureaucratic interference, it comes as no surprise that how a company chooses to hire or not hire convicted criminals should be determined by some bureaucrat.

  • wally c

    And one wonders why student test scores are down. If you are a minority they will say the test is discriminatory. Happened in Va Beach with the math portion of a police test.

  • http://blog.cyberquill.com/ Cyberquill

    While they’re at it, the EECO might want to look into the disproportionately small number of short white guys playing at NBA games.

    • Pete Bruno

      How about us short white guys who are in our seventies. We’re doubly discriminated against! Where can I signup for a class action suit?

  • Wheels55

    Perhaps the Obama Administration should hire these ex-cons. After all, these people would fit right in.

    • Pete Bruno

      It would seem they have!

    • Stimpy

      They already work at ‘Acorn’. That is a part of the administration, isn’t it?

  • Susan Mack

    PC gone awry again! Keeps proving that ‘STUPID IS FOREVER’

    Time to get rid of EEOC, I think.

  • Charlie

    I heard this story on the news the other day and am simply astounded at the stupidity of it all. We do seem to get some shallow thinkers in DC.
    I do agree that background research should be done before hiring and that employers have their own rights as to hiring choices. The report of one of my best hires ever came back with a conviction for “public display”. A little digging and I found out that where he grew up, an arrest for public display meant you were standing on a street corner with an open can of beer.
    Bet you were thinking something else too.

  • Gman213

    And this is the perfect example of why America is as screwed up as it is. We are our own worst enemies.

    • Pete Bruno

      Ready, shoot, aim!

  • pupster40

    This seems to confirm that the common sense, once treasured in America, is now turned on its head. The line between morality and law seems to be very blury.

  • Haaseline

    Bern, i am a convicted felon. I have to live with checking the box at the end of each time i apply for a job. It’s not optimal but its is what it is. I respect those who are the employer and they have to find it in their hearts to give that 2nd chance. I believe though that all the uproar is coming from people of color on this one. They are the ones confused on race and crime. With that being said as I become the minority (white guy over 50) why can’t I have these same rights?? I was raised to live with my circumstances and use my faith/hard work to pull myself into a better place. I put my job seeking shoes on everyday , take no freebee’s from the government and hope for better times in a chance. When the guy raised like this starts to look for his pay-check via freedoms it will be the dagger in the heart of our economic system. I pray for the hearts of employers to do the right thing vs the law pushing a heart to order.

    • Pete Bruno

      Don’t give up. Your head is screwed on right. Hopefully some employer somewhere along the line will recognise this and give you a shot.
      Good luck!

      • Haaseline

        Thanks Pete, still standing strong!!

    • nickshaw

      Though I can honestly say it would depend on what you were convicted of, I would hire you based on your forthright explanation of the circumstances, your behavior since then and your qualifications.
      Color would play no part in my decision.
      Like Pete says, it’s seems your head is screwed on right and I too wish you luck.

      • Haaseline

        Thanks Nickshaw appreciate the edification …

  • souvoter

    White guy was turned down at Wal-Mart when only a single charge of disturbing the peace ten (10) years ago. This is taking it too far!!!! I guess if you are white and spit on the sidewalk, you will be dis-qualified in order to justify dis-qualifying all with criminal back grounds. I agree, qualification should be on a case-by-case basis.

    • Pete Bruno

      Doesn’t sound right. Normally criminal background checks are for felony convictions. Might want to check your source on this one. There may be more to the story.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I am continually amazed at the excessive efforts made treating systoms rather than diseases. Human beings and they’re societies are built on some rather simple biological imperatives. Access to food, water, shelter, (clothing) and reproductive opportunities. Modern genetics has proven conclusively that like the Bible stories we were told when we were kids, we all come from the same parents. Race is a construct not a fact. The lack of proscriptions against modern sexual enlightenment is producing a nation of fatherless girls and boys. For demographic reasons (that are too lengthy to go into here) the black community has been disparately affected. (nearly 3 out of 4 black children will be raised in single parent families) Fatherless girls are known to become sexually active at earlier ages, drop out of school, and generally go on to earn less money than their fathered counterparts. Fatherless boys also become sexually active earlier, quit school earlier, and without the firm hand of fatherly discipline, get into trouble. Incarceration rates for fatherless boys are also significantly higher. On a more intersting note children from single parent families that are headed fathers, (rather than mothers) do as well in school as children from two parent families. Social justice will not occur by hiring criminals. one way it will occur, is by re-instating societal proscriptions for illicit (un married) sexual behavior.

    • Darren Perkins

      That ship has sailed, though I agree with your sentiment.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        I agree the ship has sailed, but are we really going to support living in a society, where the vast majority of our children, are destined to be raised by state dependant single mothers living in poverty?????

        • Darren Perkins

          If the lefties have their way that is exactly what we will have and are having. Government programs are as much to blame as sexual promiscuity when more money can be garnered with an absent father and each new birth. More permanent democratic voters permanently dependent on the government.

  • Darren Perkins

    I would say that there is a problem here that deserves to be addressed but they are going after the wrong parties. I believe that there is discrimination but it is not racial it is economic. The court system favors those who can pay for a good defense. The rest are left to accept the meager representation that a public defenders office will provide. Even those who can afford an attorney to represent them may not afford to retain that attorney for a trial and they are forced to accept whatever plea arrangement that can be made. In my opinion the unfair ‘discrimination’ takes place in the court system and not at the potential employer. I do think that it would not be a bad thing if only felony convictions be considered in employment decisions but that is certainly a debatable point.

    • George Williams

      Why should an employer hire someone who has a mark against them when they can hire someone with a spotless record? Offenses less than felonious are often precursors to worst behavior, including felonies. Who are you or the government to dictate what are the normal prerogatives of the employer?

      • Darren Perkins

        I can think of numerous reasons why one might prefer the ‘blemished’ over the the spotless. For instance the ‘blemished’ may have more experience or a proven track record. They may have performed better at the interview. Maybe the unblemished had bad things to say about the last employer that he was fired from and the ‘blemished’ is still employed. In other words: all other things being equal the ‘blemished’ is a better fit for the job. To keep things in perspective here: a misdemeanor includes traffic offenses such as speeding. There is a reason these charges are not felonies…they are relatively minor. If you want to ensure that they graduate to felonies then one sure way is to keep them from being able to earn a living.

        • George Williams

          I wouldn’t hire you as management in my company. I can be inferred that people without histories of bad behavior have demonstrated maturity, that there is a high probability that they will continue to do so. A business is not a social experiment. Employers do not take unnecessary risks. People with records have to be supervised more closely, and that takes time and resources, and, both cost money.

          • Darren Perkins

            I wouldn’t want to work for you if the bottom line is ALL that matters to you. Companies are made up of people and people, ALL people make mistakes at times. Most don’t get caught. The appearance of good behavior does not mean dedicated or intelligent. In fact it might mean they could afford better legal representation or that they are connected. The whole world is a social experiment and if you take the human element out of your decisions then what are we all fighting the lefties for: the right to subjugate the masses in our own republican branded way? Ridiculous… conservatism is compassionate. It seeks to help people help themselves and be self sustaining contributors to society. I don’t think people should be branded and denied employment for minor missteps especially considering our pay for justice system that we have in place. People need to eat and have a place to live. No worries though if no work is to be found they can just live off of the government and become permanent democratic voters.

          • George Williams

            When you put your own money into a business, you can dictate the hiring of all the crooks you want. I will not hire someone with a demonstrated propensity to steal. There are millions of unemployed who have not committed a crime. I’ll save my compassion for them.

          • Darren Perkins

            Who said anything about stealing? I wouldn’t hire a thief either. I didn’t say throw common sense out the window. There are many other offenses one can get a misdemeanor for. I’m saying that one shouldn’t rule out employing people based merely on the fact they have a misdemeanor conviction.