As anyone who has applied for a job knows, you are asked if you've ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor didn't keep you - necessarily - from getting a job, but a felony would.
So for most businesses - at least those who actually did background checks on applicants to see if they were telling the truth - you could be sure that the person installing your cable or making your Pepsi or what have you wasn't a criminal.
But because a "disproportionate" number of felons are black, the Justice Department decided that denying people jobs because of a criminal record is racist, and businesses can't do it any more.
Here's what the solution should have been.
Every black leader in the black community should have gone into its churches and its schools and said, "Hey, if you commit a crime and go to jail, you'll never be able to get a decent job and you'll be on welfare for the rest of your life. So don't do it. Show Whitey that you're not criminally inclined - let them do the crimes so you can get the jobs!"
Instead, they're being told - yeah, go ahead and do all the crime you want. You'll still be able to get a job at a good company. (in the same way, they're being told - don't worry about learning math. If a company makes you take a math test and you flunk it, it's racist, so don't even worry about it, the ACLU will take care of it.)
I want to know 2 things.
1) If Pepsi has been working voluntarily with the government since 2006 (that'd be before Obama and Holder, by the way) why are they being fined! And what is going to be done with all that money - will it go into a black scholarship fund?
2) While apparently 300 blacks were denied jobs because of their criminal records, how many white people with criminal records were denied jobs - and will they be allowed to reapply now also?
From Washington Post: Pepsi Beverages pays $3.1 million to settle federal race discrimination charges
WASHINGTON — Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants — even if they weren’t convicted of a crime.
The settlement announced Wednesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of a national government crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.
EEOC officials said the company’s policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants who had been arrested, but not convicted of a crime, and denied employment to others who were convicted of minor offenses.
Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it’s irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.
The company has since adopted a new criminal background policy and plans to make jobs available to victims of the old policy if they are still interested in jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the openings.
“I commend Pepsi’s willingness to reexamine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed,” EEOC Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien said in a statement.
Pepsi Beverage spokesman Dave DeCecco said the company’s criminal background check policy has always been neutral and that the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination. He said after the issue was first raised in 2006, the company worked with the EEOC to revise its background check process “to create a workplace that is as diverse and inclusive as possible.”
“We are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion and we have been widely recognized for our efforts for decades,” DeCecco said.
He said the new policy would take a more “individualized approach” in considering the applicant’s criminal history against the particular job being sought.
Pepsi Beverages is PepsiCo’s beverage manufacturing, sales and distribution operating unit in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Under the settlement, the company will provide the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices and offer antidiscrimination training to its hiring personnel and managers.
About 73 percent of major employers report that they always check on applicants’ criminal records, while 19 percent do so for select job candidates, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.
But increased federal scrutiny of such policies has led some companies to reevaluate their hiring process. Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer who has represented companies trying to comply with EEOC’s requirements, said there has been an uptick over the past year in EEOC charges over the use of background checks.
“The EEOC has taken a very aggressive enforcement posture on the use of criminal background and criminal history,” Devata said.
The commission held a special meeting on the topic last summer, and Devata said employers have been expecting the EEOC to issue more specific guidance.
EEOC officials have said, for example, that an old drunken driving conviction may not be relevant to a clerical job, but a theft conviction may disqualify someone from working at a bank.
Julie Schmid, acting director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis office, said the EEOC recommends that employers consider the nature and gravity of offenses, the time that has passed since conviction or completion of a sentence, and the nature of the job sought.
“We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance” with antidiscrimination laws, Schmid said in a written statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment