EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals

[HardcoreABN]

As a business owner, why would I hire someone who is not qualified? I fully plan on doing criminal backround checks, credit checks, driving record checks, and service record checks on all applicants and have no intention of hiring anyone who has been convicted of a felony or fails any of the other checks. The credit check will be on a case by case basis, given the economic crash. Receive something other than an Honorable Discharge? You won't be hired. History of constant traffic violations? No chance in hell. In my field, there are more than enough qualified or people who are almost qualified that just need a little work that I would not have to worry about hiring someone who is unqualified.

Theft from within is one of the largest areas of loss of any business. That is one reason for being selective in hiring. Not just that, but your employees work and professionalism is the face of your company. First impressions are the only impressions. If a customer even thinks something is missing from his vehicle, not only will he not come back but he will tell everyone he knows and you have lost all of those potential customers as well.

[87vette81big]

Originally Posted by HardcoreABN

As a business owner, why would I hire someone who is not qualified? I fully plan on doing criminal backround checks, credit checks, driving record checks, and service record checks on all applicants and have no intention of hiring anyone who has been convicted of a felony or fails any of the other checks. The credit check will be on a case by case basis, given the economic crash. Receive something other than an Honorable Discharge? You won't be hired. History of constant traffic violations? No chance in hell. In my field, there are more than enough qualified or people who are almost qualified that just need a little work that I would not have to worry about hiring someone who is unqualified.

Theft from within is one of the largest areas of loss of any business. That is one reason for being selective in hiring. Not just that, but your employees work and professionalism is the face of your company. First impressions are the only impressions. If a customer even thinks something is missing from his vehicle, not only will he not come back but he will tell everyone he knows and you have lost all of those potential customers as well.

Good Luck opening Your own Shop.
Your toughest customers are not men but women today.
Just care about when will my car or truck be done & how much $ ?
Men are still Men. If one guy is pissed off enough, he will knock the other the fuck out out cold. No need to call the cops.
Also, your a longtime Mechanic too.
One big concern is the security of your shop after hours.
Your Snap On Tool Box, MAC, Or Matco box.
Average mechanic has anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 invested in tools.
In Illinois, they don;t even bother breaking into the tool boxes, entire box is loaded onto a power lift gate truck & off to Chicago they go back into an abandoned warehouse.
My boss got hit a few years back before I started working for him. Alarm still in place.
He has since bought a 12 gauge shotgun.
Blow the SOB's Cocks right off this time around.....
He lives right next door to his shop.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

Got any reference proving the article is wrong?

It was pretty easy to understand, the law says they can't hired a twice convicted thief and they are getting sued for not hiring said twice convicted thief.

The only "reference" I need is the knowledge that the EEOC can't pursue a lawsuit based on "criminal history," as that is not a protected class.

The fact that you continue to be obtuse about the reality of what the EEOC regs are because that reality doesn't further your belief is laughable. You don't want information if its contrary to your preconceived notions. You don't want debate from people who know more than you. You don't want to understand. You want people to read your threads, gobble it up with a spoon and join into the paranoia.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

The only "reference" I need is the knowledge that the EEOC can pursue a lawsuit based on "criminal history," as that is not a protected class.

The fact that you continue to be obtuse about the reality of what the EEOC regs are because that reality doesn't further your belief is laughable. You don't want information if its contrary to your preconceived notions. You don't want debate from people who know more than you. You don't want to understand. You want people to read your threads, gobble it up with a spoon and join into the paranoia.

Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC.

That's the jest of the article, with an example. It seems to me that your trying to say the sky isn't blue and that these people are dummies..

[XQIZT]

Just because it's called a "bombshell" in one article doesn't make it so. Again, the EEOC has had these guidelines, specifically regarding criminal records and race disparity since 1969. They've simply updated them, but nothing "new" is occurring. So, I guess if you define "bombshell" as "news that is coming out of 1969", then yes...it's a "bombshell"...otherwise, it's much adieu about nothing.

[XQIZT]

*** Corrected post 33... "CAN'T pursue a lawsuit"....mistyped and posted "CAN pursue a lawsuit." ***