So bad credit, or a criminal record is a black and Hispanic thing... huh. Who knew? by Wulfenstar

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/11/some_job_screening_
tactics_challenged_as_illegal/

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

THIS, RIGHT HERE, is why we have so many problems with "race" relations in our country.

This whole article, and the described lawsuit, makes me sick.

Racism of low expectations.

Handouts.

It's ok for one, but not another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:53 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is a valid argument:

"People make mistakes," said Hudson, who is black, "but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system."

This is not:

"alleging the company's hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites."

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:21 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

That's a bunch of crap. I don't know, maybe it's different where I live, but I never had any trouble not breaking the law. (aside from a couple speeding tickets) The idea that because someone is born a certain color, they have less control over whether or not they commit a crime, is a ridiculous idea to me.

I will agree with the secondary point of the article. Mistakes can be made, and if those mistakes have been corrected, or paid for, then people should be given a second chance. Also, if the offense in question has nothing to do with the job being applied for, I don't see how it's an issue, I'll agree with that point.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:59 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
I don't know, maybe it's different where I live, but I never had any trouble not breaking the law. (aside from a couple speeding tickets) The idea that because someone is born a certain color, they have less control over whether or not they commit a crime, is a ridiculous idea to me.

Not so much "control over whether or not they commit a crime" as control whether or not they're charged with a higher crime, or sentenced more harshly. If you're white, you're far more likely to get a reduced sentence or probation, and you're more likely to get offered a sweeter plea deal to plead guilty to a lesser crime.

That's not making excuses; that's just reporting objective reality.

And in some places, you're far more likely to be charged - even with a crime you didn't commit, had nothing to do with, and knew nothing about - if you're of a certain non-white color. Look up the recent conviction of a former Chicago cop for the routine and systematic torture of "suspects" of color in what came to be known as "Area 2" of South Chicago. This was confirmed to have been going on for DECADES, since 1982 at least. At least one cop has now been convicted of it, and faces up to 45 years in jail.

Now, you may argue that this is the rare case, but I have to ask, if this is "collateral damage", how much collateral damage is too much? And if your answer depends in any way on whether we're discussing poor inner-city blacks or middle-class white kids, then there's part of the problem.

Non-whites are convicted of felonies far more often than whites, all else being equal. And as Frem has pointed out so many times, once you have the stain and scarlet letter of a felony conviction on you, you may as well give up, because society is set up to NOT give second chances.

Not all who are convicted are guilty, and not all who walk free are innocent.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:03 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Kwicko, you and I have had our disagreements... but you can't seriously think this is ok?

Can you?

To say, bluntly, that blacks and hispanics are incapabale of NOT commiting crimes, or of even having good credit... and therefor, along with denying self-determination to an entire group, you would shackle the rest with the burdon of employing criminals who have commited, amoung other things... murder.

And to do it all under the cry of racism if you didnt?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

To further say, that a young black child or a hispanic is UNABLE to NOT commit a crime, and because of that it would be racist to NOT employ someone with a criminal record of fraund and embezzlement at bank?

I've been holding off on commenting on this. It really makes my blood boil.

I dont even think I am able to coherrantly express my outrage at this.

carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:23 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I don't doubt that there are inequities under the law, but...

Arguing that because group X tends to be convicted of more crime, that a screening against past criminal behavior is discriminatory, is a bad argument.

Arguing that when someone has paid their debt to society that they should be treated as anyone else, is a good argument.

It is true that discrimination against people with a criminal past equates to an unspoken extension of their sentence, an additional punishment off the books, for the entirety of their lives. THAT is what I find wrong.

If you want to punish someone forever, then just be honest and assign them a life sentence. Otherwise, protect them once their time is served.

Sadly, there are few people who want to stand up and protect the rights of 'criminals.' Even when those people aren't criminals anymore under the law.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Sadly, there are few people who want to stand up and protect the rights of 'criminals.' Even when those people aren't criminals anymore under the law."

Yes, you serve your time, you should be square with the house.

But, its hard to be nice and say everything is alright when a pedophile is applying for a job at a day care center.

Then, denying a pedophile, or a murderer, a job at a day care center could be considered raciss...

so carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If we do not believe a pedophile can ever repay their debt to society, or be considered safe in the community, then we should never let them out of prison.

If we do let them out of prison, then we are saying they are safe for the community.

You can't have it both ways.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Kwicko, you and I have had our disagreements... but you can't seriously think this is ok?

Can you?

To say, bluntly, that blacks and hispanics are incapabale of NOT commiting crimes, or of even having good credit... and therefor, along with denying self-determination to an entire group, you would shackle the rest with the burdon of employing criminals who have commited, amoung other things... murder.

And to do it all under the cry of racism if you didnt?

Wulf, I don't believe I in any way claimed that blacks and Hispanics are unable to keep from committing crimes. What I *DID* say is that they are far more likely to be CHARGED with crimes, charged with more serious crimes, and charged wrongly, than whites, all other factors being equal.

Of course, I find it ludicrous to run a credit check on someone applying for a job in the first place. Even if you have horrible credit, if you have enough money, you can BUY your way to a better credit score. And if you're poor and have NO credit, that's worse than having bad credit in most cases. So it's basically a way of putting out the shingle in front of your business that says, "No poor need apply".

I find that galling.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
To further say, that a young black child or a hispanic is UNABLE to NOT commit a crime, and because of that it would be racist to NOT employ someone with a criminal record of fraund and embezzlement at bank?

I've been holding off on commenting on this. It really makes my blood boil.

I dont even think I am able to coherrantly express my outrage at this.

carry on.

If you have a long record of DUI, I wouldn't hire you to be a cab driver or a bus driver.

If you have a history of theft, I'd not hire you in my warehouse.

If you have a history of embezzlement, I'd not hire you to keep my books.

But none of that has anything to do with the color of your skin.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I don't doubt that there are inequities under the law, but...

Arguing that because group X tends to be convicted of more crime, that a screening against past criminal behavior is discriminatory, is a bad argument.

Arguing that when someone has paid their debt to society that they should be treated as anyone else, is a good argument.

It is true that discrimination against people with a criminal past equates to an unspoken extension of their sentence, an additional punishment off the books, for the entirety of their lives. THAT is what I find wrong.

If you want to punish someone forever, then just be honest and assign them a life sentence. Otherwise, protect them once their time is served.

Sadly, there are few people who want to stand up and protect the rights of 'criminals.' Even when those people aren't criminals anymore under the law.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I don't disagree with any particular point, sir. ;)

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Sadly, there are few people who want to stand up and protect the rights of 'criminals.' Even when those people aren't criminals anymore under the law."

Yes, you serve your time, you should be square with the house.

But, its hard to be nice and say everything is alright when a pedophile is applying for a job at a day care center.

Then, denying a pedophile, or a murderer, a job at a day care center could be considered raciss...

so carry on.

How is that "raciss"? You *MIGHT* be able to make a point about it being DISCRIMINATORY, but not "racist". There is a difference.

I'm not in favor of hiring pedophiles at day care centers, or as school teachers, or to drive the Good Humor truck. But none of that has anything to do with "racism".

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

..... and you havnt read the article then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:14 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/11/some_job_screening_
tactics_challenged_as_illegal/

That is the most absurd article I've ever read, except the part about blacks not being able to control themselves thus committing crimes and having shitty credit. See, that is fact. I have posted many times about the inability of blacks to pass on instant gratification. It is good to see a negro that sees the light. Now I see things a bit different than the whole "would you hire a person convicted of fraud to work in a bank" thing. I see it more as ...would you hire a dog to be a bartender. Think about that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 1:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman, once in a while you do a good turn. In this case, making a ridiculous argument just to show how ridiculous it is. Good example! Carry on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 2:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, despite your tendency to want to see things in black and white (and I mean that in ALL senses of the phrase!) this is a complex topic. The first question is: Should we use credit scores and criminal records AT ALL to screen out applicants?

I can't see ANY reason to use credit scores... can you???

There are all kinds of reasons why a person may have a bad credit score: personal and family illness, divorce, unemployment... Poor credit scores don't affect job performance, only job performance affects job performance. Locking someone out of a job because they're poor is the best way that I know of to KEEP them poor. And since you're all for self-betterment (right?)... well...

As far as criminal records are concerned... that's a little more problematic. People are worried about hiring criminals because they're naturally worried about criminal activity on the job.

On the one hand, the best predictor of criminal activity is a history of criminal activity... especially repeated convictions. Jail time offers no assurances of rehabilitation, and violent criminals tend to be either pedophiles, sociopaths, or brain-damaged... it's not their fault, but it's not exactly curable either. The notion that you've "paid your debt" to society and are starting out "with a clean slate" is quaint but unfounded, and real rehabilitation takes time and commitment and has a fairly high chance of failure.

On the other hand, marijuana possession, check kiting, and other nonviolent crimes....? Not such a problem.

FWIW our agency hired a convicted felon a dozen years ago (nobody really knows what he was convicted of) and the guy has been a stellar employee ever since. If I had my druthers, JAIL would serve as rehab, and there should be a transition program for released felons. But that's assuming, of course, that we have nearly full employment, and since the business community would never commit to that, my druthers are going nowhere.

BTW... I'm curious... given your history, don't YOU have a criminal record? Because it sounds to me like you should...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 3:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sig,

I agree about the credit scores.

Honestly thats noones business, and I can't see how it could do anything to predict someones performance.

Granted it might show if the person is mature enough, or steady enough, for a position. but not necessarily.

As to the criminal history... well, I don't want someone to go thru double-jeopardy. And, a DUI doesnt necessarily mean you can't work as a county clerk/barista/waiter etc.

BTW: as a side note, its considered a sex crime in some states to pee outdoors. I couldn't believe it when I read that.

Then again, if you were convicted of molestation, and you are trying for a job working with kids?

But none of that is the point of what this woman is saying. Shes saying that blacks and hispanics have a higher percentage of committing crimes, and therfor, its racist to look at criminal history as part of a job interview/backround check.

Its not racist to have 2 identical applicants, and choose the one who hasn't been convicted of murder/welfare fraud/embezzlement/whatever.

Thats just smart.

But she wants to make it a racism issue, and at the same time is basically saying that black and brown people are incapabable of NOT committing crimes, and because of affrimative action type laws you HAVE to give them a job.

Its insulting, its asinine, it makes my blood boil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 4:29 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:

BTW: as a side note, its considered a sex crime in some states to pee outdoors. I couldn't believe it when I read that.

...What about camping?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 4:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, blacks and hispanics have a far higher rate of being stopped by police. It kinda goes downhill from there.

It seems to me that you're so much against gubmint, but at the same time you side with the police as if they do no wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 4:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No thats not my argument at all.

I don't think cops should have all the powers they do, and yes that would lead to less stops.

Blacks and Hispanics have higher rates of CONVICTION, as well. Jury of peers etc.

You can't just fall back on the old argument of higher conviction/longer sentence when the evidence proves guilt.

Also, this woman is arguing that its a GIVEN that blacks and Hispanics commit a DIPROPORTINATE amount of crimes. Which, if true, is sad in itself.

But then she turns it around and says you HAVE to give convicted criminals a job, or you will be slapped with lawsuits... its crazy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, I take it math was never your strong point?

Let's make some assumptions for the sake of argument. Let's assume there is a bunch of young white guys in a privileged fraternity, given to drinking, drugging, hazing, hanging about, and the occasional date rape, and young black men in the city who are hanging about, given to drinking, drugging, and the occasional date rape.

If you're a young black male in an urban setting, it's likely that you will be stopped, on average, FIVE TIMES in a year. If you're a frat boy, it's unlikely that you'll be stopped at all. If both groups are engaging in the same behavior with the same frequency, but one group is stopped by the cops far more often than the second, the percentage of arrests and convictions in that first group will also necessarily be higher. Same behavior, different outcome.

Quote:
Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company's hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites.

This argument does not say that blacks and hispanics break the law more often. It COULD be simply saying that they are under greater scrutiny and are therefore CAUGHT more often while engaging in the same behavior as whites.

Quote:
"People make mistakes," said Hudson, who is black, "but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system."

Here, she undercuts that potential argument.

Quote:
If criminal histories are taken into account, the EEOC says employers must also consider the nature of the job, the seriousness of the offense and how long ago it occurred. For example, it may make sense to disqualify a bank employee with a past conviction for embezzlement, but not necessarily for a DUI.

I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:49 AM