Have Record, Will Work
"Companies using criminal records ...to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.....according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"
Sam Hananel, Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2010 (1)
The EEOC, created by President Lyndon B Johnson as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is considering filing discrimination complaints against several firms that reject all ex-convicts, since the policy has a "disparate impact" on black and Hispanic job-seekers. The incarceration rate for blacks is six times that for whites and that for Hispanics is 2.3 times as high. (1)
"Disparate impact" is considered discriminatory if the policy has no bearing on job performance. For example, requiring proficiency in French for a janitorial job would be discriminatory. But is criminal conviction a reasonable disqualification for any job?
Consider this fact: Of persons released from American prisons, about 68% are arrested for a new crime within 3 years of release. (2) Since not all crimes result in arrest, and not all arrested people are actually guilty, this figure does not equal the percentage of ex-cons that re-offend. However, in my judgment, more unsolved crimes are committed than innocent people are charged, so the actual recidivism rate is really higher than 68%.
Job performance depends on following directions, but the essence of criminal behavior is ignoring rules. Crime is spurred by greed, addiction, impulsiveness and a general disregard for the rights of others. Although we would like to believe that our prisons encourage inmates to repent and "go-straight" after release, the facts indicate that at least two-thirds of them commit new crimes. This means that if a business hires an ex-con, the odds are more than two-to-one that the new employee will offend, possibly at the workplace. This risk is borne by the other employees, customers and the business itself.
Accordingly, I contend that the EEOC would be wrong to charge an employer with discrimination for rejecting all ex-convicts. I understand that if this policy is widespread, released it will be more difficult for convicts to get jobs and become law-abiding citizens. But that is their problem, it should not be that of prospective employers. Many Americans are out of work nowadays, and most of them (including most minority-group members) have never committed any crime.
A policy that shows preference to applicants with a clean record is just one more reason that crime does not pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 12, 2010, page 3D "Job Screening tactics assailed."
(2) Wikipedia: Recidivism.
Sam Hananel, Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2010 (1)
The EEOC, created by President Lyndon B Johnson as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is considering filing discrimination complaints against several firms that reject all ex-convicts, since the policy has a "disparate impact" on black and Hispanic job-seekers. The incarceration rate for blacks is six times that for whites and that for Hispanics is 2.3 times as high. (1)
"Disparate impact" is considered discriminatory if the policy has no bearing on job performance. For example, requiring proficiency in French for a janitorial job would be discriminatory. But is criminal conviction a reasonable disqualification for any job?
Consider this fact: Of persons released from American prisons, about 68% are arrested for a new crime within 3 years of release. (2) Since not all crimes result in arrest, and not all arrested people are actually guilty, this figure does not equal the percentage of ex-cons that re-offend. However, in my judgment, more unsolved crimes are committed than innocent people are charged, so the actual recidivism rate is really higher than 68%.
Job performance depends on following directions, but the essence of criminal behavior is ignoring rules. Crime is spurred by greed, addiction, impulsiveness and a general disregard for the rights of others. Although we would like to believe that our prisons encourage inmates to repent and "go-straight" after release, the facts indicate that at least two-thirds of them commit new crimes. This means that if a business hires an ex-con, the odds are more than two-to-one that the new employee will offend, possibly at the workplace. This risk is borne by the other employees, customers and the business itself.
Accordingly, I contend that the EEOC would be wrong to charge an employer with discrimination for rejecting all ex-convicts. I understand that if this policy is widespread, released it will be more difficult for convicts to get jobs and become law-abiding citizens. But that is their problem, it should not be that of prospective employers. Many Americans are out of work nowadays, and most of them (including most minority-group members) have never committed any crime.
A policy that shows preference to applicants with a clean record is just one more reason that crime does not pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 12, 2010, page 3D "Job Screening tactics assailed."
(2) Wikipedia: Recidivism.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home