A federal agency once famed for its anti-employer zeal is quickly returning to an activist stance. [Workplace Prof; my earlier take on the criminal-record issue, in Reason]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
As far as using criminal records in hiring…can you say “negligent hiring” If you hire someone who has a history of violence in the workplace and you know about it and still hire them…br prepared for lawsuits
i posted this over at the workplace blog and repeat it here:
Depending on the situation, if you don’t do bg checks, etc. you can be held liable. indeed, in the health care profession, medicare’s conditions of participation REQUIRE you to do background checks.
Martin Luther King once said that he dreamed of a day when people would be judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character. But if you judge for a major component of that character, their ability to obey the law and manage their finances, the EEOC comes after you. I consider this presumptively insane.
Where I used to work in the US govt, you could not get a job without them doing a background check, including credit and criminal, and giving fingerprints. I bet that the people at the EEOC have some similar hiring requirements.
If you need a security clearance, that is an ADDITIONAL, much more details check beyond the basic criminal/credit checks.
Comments on this entry are closed.