Say you own security-guard business. Let's say your state has a law saying convicted felons can't be hired as security guards. That doesn't seem unreasonable, does it? I mean, if a security guard is a convicted felon it's not unreasonable to think the chances are higher than average that he might pull an inside job.
Now one of the goofiest, most out-of-control agencies of the gummint--the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--has issued a ruling that a business can NOT decline to hire a convicted felon.
Roll that around for a minute: The statist bastards who run the EEOC have never had to meet a payroll, never worried about paying corporate taxes or self-employment tax, never spent a month or two or three trying to get a crucial business permit or license...and yet they have the gall, the *arrogance,* to tell businessmen-- they MUST hire felons?
Sorry, I don't have my rifle with me. Can you wait a sec while I get it?
The EEOC is the bureau that infamously insisted that each and every business have exactly the same ethnic composition in its hires as the local community--while simultaneously denying that they're instituting quotas (which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some years ago).
Now the EEOC has essentially lampooned itself, with a ruling from last April that businesses can't decline to hire a convicted felon.
Suppose you had a family business--say something consumer-oriented, like babysitting or interior design or something. Say your business is booming and you decide you need to hire more staff, and the first guy who applies is a serial killer who beat the rap because all the witnesses mysteriously died before the trial. According to the EEOC, unless you can show a business reason other than his criminal record
for not hiring him, you can be sued if you decide not to hire this guy.
I'll bet you think I'm kidding.
Wish I was. The EEOC--which is to say, the federal government--sued a Florida trucking company for refusing to hire a man who had
multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny. The
EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification
for the job was the
ability to drive a tractor-trailer, and that the company couldn't consider the guy's lawbreaking past. And this was way back in 1989, before an official, written policy existed on this.
At the same time--of course--U.S. courts
have ruled that if a company hires an employee who turns out to be a murderous thug with anger-control problems, the victim of the employee's acts can sue the company
for the actions of its employee. "Knew or should have known..."
Can you say "no-win situation for employers?"
According to the EEOC the only way a business can decline to hire a felon is if it conducts a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender's recent
history. This is expensive, time-consuming and almost certainly vulnerable to legal attack. How far back is "recent"? I suspect that any employer that tried to use this method to justify a no-hire would be sued by the EEOC--which, of course, has infinite government attorneys to pursue the case, while you obviously have to pay your own legal bills.
Obviously, not all felons are murderers, and I do believe that good people who made a stupid decision years ago may well deserve a second chance to straighten up. But as a business owner the decision to take that risk should be my call.
I reject the idea that some government bureaucrat can destroy my business
(by suing me into poverty)--or threaten to--if I exercise my own judgment and decline to hire a particular person if I get a bad vibe from him or her.
After all, last I heard it was my fucking business,
right? Oh, wait, dat's right: Under the benevolent rule of King Barrack, my business doesn't really belong to me.
He tells me (and his ignorant, socialist friends loudly agree) that I didn't build it, and that since I use taxpayer-funded roads and such, my business really, properly, belongs to...well, he doesn't say but I'm guessing he thinks it belongs to the government. Or da people, or...anyone but me.
Every day I'm newly astonished that half of the electorate could possibly have voted for this guy. Then I listen to a few of the leftist morons on MSNBC or CNN and it makes perfect sense.
For more on the EEOC ruling click here.