|
Replies: 30
| visibility 251
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1073]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1902
Joined: 12/9/98
|
Re: Add "criminal background checks" to the list of things that are racist....
2
Apr 23, 2024, 8:07 AM
|
|
This administration has stepped up these type efforts and are crushing businesses. When will people wake up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6322
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Add "criminal background checks" to the list of things that are racist....
2
Apr 23, 2024, 8:46 AM
|
|
This is so stupid as to not be believed, but then in a world where we must affirm a kid’s belief that he/she/they is a cat, anything goes.
Hiring people with a criminal record to work at a convenience store is quite convenient for a criminal if not reformed.
This is such bullshidd.
The federal government including the White House should follow suit if this is to be forced on a private business.
If this nonsense prevails, than how can anyone reject a prospective employee with a criminal record?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13186]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14213
Joined: 11/2/15
|
SCSU now requires ID to get on Campus. HBCU's now going full rascist.***
2
Apr 23, 2024, 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4814]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4861
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: Add "criminal background checks" to the list of things that are racist....
1
Apr 23, 2024, 8:55 AM
|
|
Why would anyone expect any different from the party of criminals and the people who love them? Democrats know criminals are a core constituency so of course they are gonna make the rest of us hire them or else. If you or your customers end up dead or robbed it isn't the problem of the EEOC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
I'm pretty sure the DoD, DoJ, DoS and almost every other Government agency
1
Apr 23, 2024, 8:56 AM
|
|
except for maybe the EEOC runs a criminal background check on all their potential "employees". I know that all run those criminal background checks when it comes to getting a Government security clearance. I guess it is only discriminatory and racist when a private company does it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Hopefully, the EEOC will lose this lawsuit. But it is BS that Sheetz has to
2
Apr 23, 2024, 8:58 AM
|
|
spend money on lawyers to fight it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Here's what you're missing
3
Apr 23, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
Which can be gained by reading the whole article:
The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.
By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said.
They aren't arguing that criminal background checks are racist. Those are your words.
They're stating that the failed background checks were used against minorities far more than they were used against whites who failed them as well.
EDIT: The OP and the responses are a masterclass in what happens when you just read a headline and get outraged instead of reading the article.
Message was edited by: Catahoula®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24846]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42664
Joined: 7/31/10
|
And the main point that is missing... What were the crimes?***
Apr 23, 2024, 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5703]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12193
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Here's what you're missing
1
Apr 23, 2024, 2:47 PM
[ in reply to Here's what you're missing ] |
|
And this is why you are an ignorant lefty.
So do you agree? This is ludicrous. No one with half a brain cell can justify not using criminal background checks as an employment filter.
THIS IS THE CHOICE IN THIS ELECTION. Support bullchit like this - vote democrat. Support sanity and common sense - vote Trump. Period.
I'm really surprised the difference is % is not a lot more. But maybe the violent criminals are not applying for jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ignorant? For actually reading the article?
1
Apr 23, 2024, 2:56 PM
|
|
All y'all ever do is look at headlines and get outraged. All I did was point out what the article actually says vs. what the OP said, which wasn't true.
This is the argument from the federal officials:
More white people were given a free pass on failed criminal background checks than minorities.
I, personally, don't give a #### about any of this involving a gas station.
This is where YOU are an outraged little childish fascist: When someone points out the actual facts of an article instead of screaming like a rage monkey into your narrow world view of agreement, you start shouting things like "ignorant lefty!"
IT IS NOT A BIG ASK TO SUGGEST YOU CLOWNS ACTUALLY READ YOUR ####### ARTICLES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24846]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42664
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I ALWAYS decided who worked for me... Sue me. Oops, too late.***
Apr 23, 2024, 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5703]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12193
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Ignorant? For actually reading the article?
Apr 23, 2024, 8:31 PM
[ in reply to Ignorant? For actually reading the article? ] |
|
We all read the article. W T F are you saying here?
My question is do you believe it is racist to use background checks that look at criminal convictions?
Regardless of what statistics result from the background check, do you believe a criminal background is a reason to not hire someone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
None of you read it
1
Apr 24, 2024, 10:20 AM
|
|
If you had, there would have been no outrage posts. Tabby posted something dishonest--I don't think he did it intentionally, but it was factually wrong. Nobody was saying background checks are racist.
The article states it very simply (and you, stupidly as always, called me ignorant for pointing it out):
White candidates who failed criminal background checks were far less likely to be rejected than minorities who also failed it. It's NOT claiming that more minorities failed the checks. It's claiming that more of them who DID fail were rejected.
It's simple math and reading comprehension. It's not hard. But reading comprehension has been very poor on this board in the past, and that's probably why so many get outraged over nothing.
My question is do you believe it is racist to use background checks that look at criminal convictions?
No, I don't. And no one in the article said it was. Tabby FALSELY claimed the article said that.
Regardless of what statistics result from the background check, do you believe a criminal background is a reason to not hire someone?
Depending on the crime, yes, and I also think businesses should have the freedom to make that choice.
Oops, now you have to admit that you agree with me. And that's gonna burn you up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
I think you misread it. I took that to mean that 14.5% of multiracial folks had
2
Apr 23, 2024, 3:57 PM
[ in reply to Here's what you're missing ] |
|
criminal backgrounds and were therefore turned away. 8% of white applicants had criminal backgrounds and were therefore turned away. All folks with criminal backgrounds were turned away, but that happened to turn away a greater percentage of non-white folks.
Or - I could be wrong. Or not. But maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24846]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42664
Joined: 7/31/10
|
I just re-read it from the post above and you may be right. 'Fewer whites with
Apr 23, 2024, 4:05 PM
|
|
criminal backgrounds that applied' could be the interpretation as written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6097
Joined: 10/20/00
|
Don't feel bad
Apr 23, 2024, 4:13 PM
|
|
I got it even more wrong than y'all. From not reading the article, and only Cata's quote from it, I took that
Sheetz hired around 86% of the minorities that flunked the background check, but 92% of the white folks that flunked it
Wasn't a math major though
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nope
1
Apr 23, 2024, 5:19 PM
[ in reply to I think you misread it. I took that to mean that 14.5% of multiracial folks had ] |
|
"The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.
By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said."
They were "denied employment at a rate of 14.5 percent." That's the rate of rejection. That's not saying 14.5 percent of black applicants failed the check. It means 14.5 of those who failed the screening were denied employment.
Multiracial were turned away 13.5 percent of the time, not that 13.5 percent of them failed.
And, by contrast, 8 percent of the whites who failed were rejected. It's not saying 8 percent failed.
Really, this should have been stated earlier in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24846]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42664
Joined: 7/31/10
|
That's the other interpretation. It's certainly not clear.***
Apr 23, 2024, 6:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5703]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12193
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Nope
Apr 23, 2024, 8:33 PM
[ in reply to Nope ] |
|
So what?
It doesn't matter what the stats are when summarized at some later point in time. The fact is, they are not hiring people with criminal convictions, period.
Are you suggesting the gubment can require a private company to hire people with a criminal background?
Quit repeating the article, as we all read it and understand it, apparently a lot better than you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So what?
Apr 24, 2024, 10:25 AM
|
|
Here's the what: The OP made a false claim without reading the whole article. All of you piled on with rage. You are all getting mad over something that isn't true because Tabby stated it as fact. That's it.
All I did was
Are you suggesting the gubment can require a private company to hire people with a criminal background?
No, Jesus Christ, all I did was point out that y'all foolishly didn't actually read the article and understand what was happening. That's it. I'm not agreeing with anything that's happening here. Y'all went full rage over nothing.
The only answer is, "Oops, my bad, I didn't see that part."
Quit repeating the article, as we all read it and understand it, apparently a lot better than you.
No, you clearly do not. You clearly don't get why they're suing. It's over the rate of hiring criminals based on race, NOT over who has the most criminal records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
tabbyplague® 's post below (about EEOC activity in 2012/2014) kind of backs
Apr 24, 2024, 9:12 AM
[ in reply to Nope ] |
|
me up (I think). The EEOC was definitely concerned about POC and the criminal background check because POC were more likely to have a criminal record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
But that's not what they're suing over.
Apr 24, 2024, 10:17 AM
|
|
It's all about the rate of rejection. That's the issue. Whites are rejected at a lower rate, according to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
I still think 8% of white folks had criminal records vs 14% of the others. But I
Apr 24, 2024, 10:53 AM
|
|
can see why you think your interpretation is correct. I just don't think it is...
If you're right, then Sheetz has been hiring a Sheetz-load of criminals. : - )
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10938]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15112
Joined: 8/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nope again.
Apr 24, 2024, 10:45 AM
|
|
The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.
By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said.
Show me where it says 8 percent of whites failed the background check and where 14.5 percent of blacks failed the check.
Because what I just pasted there says it's the percentage of those who failed. Not all of them who applied.
Go ahead. Copy and paste what I'm missing in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12274]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5402
Joined: 9/12/04
|
Let's jump into the time machine and go back to 2014...
Apr 24, 2024, 7:25 AM
|
|
https://www.investors.com/politics/policy-analysis/eeoc-ftc-warn-employers-not-to-run-criminal-or-credit-checks/
What are the odds - an Obama era EEOC policy has come back to life during the Biden Administration. The NAACP has been working with the EEOC since the Obama administration to "Ban the Box" to remove "have you ever been convicted of a felony" types of questions from job applications. You know - because that type of stuff ain't important to employers.
For those bellyaching over my tongue in cheek subject line to "add criminal background checks to the list of things that are racist":
Welp...For quite some time, the NAACP has taken a position that since black people are criminally incarcerated at a much higher rate (as a percentage of population) the use of criminal background checks will lead to more black folk being denied job opportunities than white folk (as a percentage) and is in turn discriminatory. According to the left such practices that render these kinds of negative results to black people are in fact an instance of "Institutional Racism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11423
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Interesting. I scanned that article and saw the EEOC sued Pepsi and won
Apr 24, 2024, 8:50 AM
|
|
$3 million in 2012 over the same/similar issue...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Why is it so ####### hard for y'all to understand this article?
1
Apr 24, 2024, 10:34 AM
[ in reply to Let's jump into the time machine and go back to 2014... ] |
|
Oh, I know why. Because I pointed out the mistake and y'all can't handle admitting you made the mistake.
For those bellyaching over my tongue in cheek subject line to "add criminal background checks to the list of things that are racist":
tabbyplague®, YOU added this to make the article sound like it was saying something it's not. I give you the benefit of the doubt of having not read the full article instead of willfully lying.
I'm going to do my best to explain why this suit is happening as simple as I can. And for the record, I don't think criminal background checks are racist nor do I care about this suit.
Let's say you have 100 white people with criminal records. Of those, the business rejects just 8 of them because of that.
Then you have 100 black people who also have records. The business decides to reject 14 of them for the same reason.
100 mixed. Thirteen of them are rejected for their records.
THAT is the lawsuit. They're arguing (and I don't give two ##### if they're right or not) that the business rejected more non-white criminals than they did white criminals.
That's it. It's easy. Just admit you were wrong like a man and move on. And for the record, I think businesses should have the right to make these calls based on criminal checks. I'm just pointing out that y'all are getting mad over the wrong thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1003]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Add "criminal background checks" to the list of things that are racist....
1
Apr 24, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
>Good grief... Ok - what am I missing board Democrats??
Here's a tip, when you read a political article you don't like, you don't have to assume everyone on the other side agrees with the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38371
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Especially when they didn't read the article and made up the narrative.***
Apr 24, 2024, 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 251
|
|
|
50
