EEOC Shock Troops...

[seer]

Men aren't being hired because of speeding tickets?

How about drunk or drug driving? Employers do take those things into account and they fall largely on men. How about assault or theft? Again, largely men. So a disparate impact on one sex, men.

[Sparko]

Simple solution, entirely in the hands of the potential employee: Don't be a criminal.

Problem solved.

[CivilDiscourse]

I said generally speaking. For example, a murderer or a drug dealer or user, gang member, etc might not be a convicted thief, but their moral standards are such that they would likely have no problem stealing cash if the opportunity presented itself.

That's where you create a recidivism circle though. Not every criminal is a career criminal. Many crimes can be the result of poor decision making, or you know, someone doing something dumb while drinking.

Bar fights (assault and battery), Vandalism (graffiti), etc. It's why I disagree with your "in general" above as a reason for simply striking on a hit for ANY crime. I'm pretty sure you have a mental image in your head of a "criminal" but I don't think that's valid.

[oxmixmudd]

Is the crime of theft directly impactful on the job the employer is hiring for?

Yes.

[oxmixmudd]

Now I go back to the same question I've asked you twice now, and haven't gotten an answer for.

If someone was convicted of taking money out of a cash drawer, would you hire them for a job that requires them to be responsible for a cash drawer, even if you feel that said person was a member of a group that was systematically charged more frequently for taking money out of a cash drawer?

No of course not, at least not without strong evidence that behavior was no longer a problem for that individual - something difficult to obtain.

But then again there is nothing in any of my posts in this thread that implies I think businesses sensitive to cash theft should be required to do that - so I'm puzzed as little as to why you ask the question.

[Stoic]

How about drunk or drug driving? Employers do take those things into account and they fall largely on men. How about assault or theft? Again, largely men. So a disparate impact on one sex, men.

I expect it would depend on the crime and the job applied for.

[oxmixmudd]

That's where you create a recidivism circle though. Not every criminal is a career criminal. Many crimes can be the result of poor decision making, or you know, someone doing something dumb while drinking.

Bar fights (assault and battery), Vandalism (graffiti), etc. It's why I disagree with your "in general" above as a reason for simply striking on a hit for ANY crime. I'm pretty sure you have a mental image in your head of a "criminal" but I don't think that's valid.

Ok, so a portion of what you are getting at is that some criminal behaviors may well not be indicators of the current employability of the individual?

Would you expect this aspect of a criminal background check - if it could be discerned - to be able to help reduce a racial disparity? If so why? I.e. why would the frequency of 'sowing wild oats in youth' sorts of run ins with the law be correlated with race independent of more serious crime that would warrant rejection on an employment application?

[CivilDiscourse]

No of course not, at least not without strong evidence that behavior was no longer a problem for that individual - something difficult to obtain.

But then again there is nothing in any of my posts in this thread that implies I think businesses sensitive to cash theft should be required to do that - so I'm puzzed as little as to why you ask the question?

When I brought up the idea of "fine tuning" CBC's, your response was this:

I wonder if that is sufficient. The problem is a society where there exist enclaves that produce criminals that are themselves racially biased. As long as we have a society where high crime areas tend to follow racial lines, the criminal background checks will tend to reject disproportionately across racial boudaries.

When I initially asked the question, your response (while ignoring the question was this)

I guess I was getting at the fact that even if they reject on a finer grained basis, the disparities will still exist, because the problem is much broader - our society and justice system creates more minority criminals by percentage than white, so rejection on the basis of criminal record will always show a bias until that larger imbalance has been relieved.

Both of those lead me to believe that, the question asked was relevant. You seem keen to argue that the disparities are an issue with the screening, which is why I asked a question that directly tackles that issue. A fine-tuned result.

[oxmixmudd]

When I brought up the idea of "fine tuning" CBC's, your response was this:


When I initially asked the question, your response (while ignoring the question was this)




Both of those lead me to believe that, the question asked was relevant. You seem keen to argue that the disparities are an issue with the screening, which is why I asked a question that directly tackles that issue. A fine-tuned result.

Thanks.

As an explanation for why I did not answer the question: The question itself seemed to indicate you were not understanding my point. I also judged that answering it would be more a rabbit trail and would not do much to help correct that apparent misunderstanding ( though acknowledging it might have helped avoid creating a barrier to communication - my fault, and my apologies ). That is, my counterpoint had nothing to do with forcing the hiring of criminals whose background presented a risk to the employer.

[seanD]

​Â

The problem Sean, is that you and I are not talking about Sheetz.ÂÂÂÂ Our discussion is focused on the words you keep trying to puppet out of the feds mouth.

You started off by claiming that the feds were saying "most" blacks had criminal records.ÂÂÂÂ I pointed out that this statement was untrue.
You then claimed that feds were implying that blacks committed more crimes.ÂÂÂÂ I pointed out that this statement was also untrue.

It was in that second statement that I provided an example showing that merely because a group was convicted of a crime more often, it does not automatically imply that they commit the crime more often.ÂÂÂÂ It was here where you tried to use that example as if it was meant to be a claim made about or applied to Sheetz.ÂÂÂÂ It's a bad faith tactic because that example wasn't tied to sheetz, and trying to use it in that way is intellectually dishonest.

My initial argument was that the feds believe most minorities commit crimes (or at least that's what they seem to be implying), hence why they believe they're being discriminated against by Sheetz. Being that Biden and democrats are notorious racists (though I classify it as benevolent racism), I don't find that at all hard to believe. You seem to be trying to read the minds of the feds and assuming they're argument is based on how minorities are discriminated against in the justice system, but I don't see any evidence of that in the article seer linked to. Your pot crime example seemed like a deflection from my initial statement. It's harder for me to believe the feds would think they could actually get away with trying to sue a company because of what the justice system does to minorities, than for me to believe they just believe minorities commit more crimes.

[seer]

I expect it would depend on the crime and the job applied for.

Well no, given the numbers there will always be a disparate impact on one sex, men, because pretty much across the board men commit the majority of crimes. It is not even close.

[Stoic]

Well no, given the numbers there will always be a disparate impact on one sex, men, because pretty much across the board men commit the majority of crimes. It is not even close.

A disparate impact is considered okay under some circumstances.

[seer]

A disparate impact is considered okay under some circumstances.

Really? So one sex experiences probably the most disparate impact imaginable but it doesn't count because it is directed towards men. So obviously the disparate impact ideal is itself unjust.

[oxmixmudd]

Really? So one sex experiences probably the most disparate impact imaginable but it doesn't count because it is directed towards men. So obviously the disparate impact ideal is itself unjust.

Your just ranting. Your original point is that businesses are not responsible to hire criminals just because there happen to be more criminals in one category or another. Now you are arguing against it.

It is stupid for the government to sue on this basis. As long as the criminal criteria - the types of crimes that if committed disqualify the applicant are applied evenly - then the business is not discriminating by race. The disparity is a consequence of a larger societal problem.

There is a larger issue though. In some cases a criteria can be racially driven. Somehow we have to hope this case can distinguish between a criteria like criminal activity and other types of criteria that may be irrelavent to the function of a buisiness.

[Sparko]

That's where you create a recidivism circle though. Not every criminal is a career criminal. Many crimes can be the result of poor decision making, or you know, someone doing something dumb while drinking.

Bar fights (assault and battery), Vandalism (graffiti), etc. It's why I disagree with your "in general" above as a reason for simply striking on a hit for ANY crime. I'm pretty sure you have a mental image in your head of a "criminal" but I don't think that's valid.

But is it the responsibility of the convenient store owner to lower the recidivism rate by hiring criminals? His responsibility is the profitability of his business, and the safety of his employees and customers. He is not responsible to fix the criminal world by hiring criminals. The responsibility of a being a criminal is soley upon the person who committed the crimes.

And the criminal has the ability to write his extenuating circumstances on his resume or application. "I was convicted of being in a bar fight when I was 22. I deeply regret my actions and have not been in legal trouble since. I ask you to give me a chance with your company. I am available for any questions you may have" or something like that.