Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Government sues employers for background checks; wants to expand checks for guns HTTP://WWW.EXAMINER.COM/ARTICLE/GOVERNMENT-SUES-EMPLOYERS-FOR-BACKGROUND-CHECKS-WANTS-TO-EXPAND-CHECKS-FOR-GUNS?CID=EXAMINER_ALERTS_ARTICLE
According to the federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies who reject prospective employees based on the results of criminal background checks may be guilty of unfair hiring practices. They may, furthermore, be guilty of racist hiring practices, since black men are more than six times as likely as white men to have been previously incarcerated, and Hispanic men more than twice as likely. From the Wall Street Journal: Federal regulators Tuesday accused two large employers of improperly using criminal-background checks in hiring, the latest salvo in a contentious debate over whether such screening amounts to discrimination against black applicants.
In complaints filed in federal courts in Illinois and South Carolina, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said two companies discount retailer Dollar General Corp. and a U.S. unit of German auto maker BMW AG generally barred potential employees based on the criminal checks, when they should have reviewed each applicant. The commission said the policies had the effect of discriminating against black applicants. In fairness, it should be noted that the article makes clear that the EEOC is not demanding that employers stop using such checks, but that they "consider the crime, its relation to an applicant's potential job, and how much time that has passed since the conviction. The guidelines also recommend that employers review each case individually, and allow applicants to show why they should be hired despite a conviction." Quite a contrast with the federal government's position on background checks for prospective gun buyers, is it not? For them, the checks are required by federal law, and there is no provision to "consider the crime, its relation to a prospective buyer's potential gun, or how much time that has passed since the conviction," nor is there a case-by-case evaluation of every would-be purchaser flagged in the checks. We have, of course, seen something very similar regarding voting--in relation to both the criminal history of a prospective voter, and the requirement for an official, government-issued ID for voting. Federal courts and this administration's Department of Justice consider such restrictions and requirements to be racially discriminatory, because in the case of criminal voters, the felon voting prohibition, combined with higher incarceration rate of non-whites, disproportionately disenfranchises them; and because the ID requirement does so, since the (rather nominal) cost of the ID is supposedly an unacceptable burden on the poor, who are disproportionately non-white. Again, this is in radical contrast to the federal government's position on gun purchases, for which background checks are of course required (and continue to become more intrusive, while "gun control" advocates try to expand them to cover a wider swath of gun sales, with legislation that even the rather anti-gun ACLU finds objectionable), and for which official ID is required (since a background check of someone who cannot be definitely confirmed to be who he says he is would not accomplish much). And all this is, of course, for merely purchasing a gun. If you want to carry it, to defend your life outside the home, still more money and red tape is required in most states--sometimes vastly more money and red tape (and sometimes political connections, as well). There is, admittedly, one argument one could make for banning excessive reliance on criminal background checks as a condition of employment (except, of course, for employment in a gun store), while simultaneously requiring such checks for gun purchases. One could argue, after all, that the fundamental human right to defend one's life and liberty against criminal assault and government tyranny is not quite as fundamental as the right to work at Dollar General. It would be a rather odd position to take, but that's apparently not much of a deterrent for "gun control" zealots.