From your cite:
“Even background checks are discriminatory to leftists. Because making sure applicants aren’t hiding a history of criminal activities isn’t condusive of diversity.
Employers are losing their rights.”
If this is the garbage that you read, hey, at least you’re reading. But I can see why you are so misinformed.
It’s the illustrations that help him understand things.
I’m curious how someone finds garbage like that in the first place. Maybe a Google search for “bullshit garbage”?
And yet somehow *you *manage to.
Because the number of gullible people is so vast. The number who for years expected a superior Republican alternative to Obamacare, based only on party propaganda, is one example. People just like you, for instance.
So you tell us what would have made you realize how totally you have been willing to buy into whatever Fox tells you. Then you’ll have the answer to your own question.
I (and I’m sure many Dopers would agree with me) have been waiting for those 7.9 years for you to present any actual fuck-up. And you can’t do it.
You’re fucking weak sauce, man. Ya got nothin’.
Well my company plan only went up 2.1% this year, so obviously nothing caused ‘massive increases for everyone’.
Hyperbole much?
Same on the minimum wage front, you spout that like gospel yet I don’t think you can find me a single documented (non-recession) increase in unemployment after an increase in the minimum wage.
So, you know, you might want to reconsider that whole reality thing and who isn’t living in it.
They do persuade people their policies are good. That’s why they get more votes. But apparently they require a supermajority.
Meanwhile the Republicans, rather than persuade people their policies are good (or indeed having any actual policies), have been putting all their efforts into suppressing Democratic turnout, from sandbagging ACORN to removing minority voters from the electoral rolls.
Do you disagree with the statement? Do you think that employers do NOT have the right to require that people they hire speak English and not have a criminal record?
What exactly is garbage about it?
I’ll ask you the same thing - what exactly was stupid about the post that I quoted. I mean, other than Obama’s stupidity in saying what he did?
Did you even bother to read the post? Or did you just see that the post was from me and stopped by to drop some shit into it?
Employers absolutely have that right - if the employee’s language and criminal record are relevant to their job.
Does the job involve interacting with the general public? Then as your employer, I can require that you speak English to the public. Does it require working on teams where not everyone speaks your preferred language? Then I can tell you to speak English so that everyone on the team knows what’s going on. But if the language you speak is not an essential function of your job, then I don’t have any right to tell you what language to speak.
As for criminal records - again, it has to be relevant. Did you have a DUI last year? Then I can say that disqualifies you from being a driver for me. But probably not a cashier. OTOH, if you were convicted of petty larceny last year, I probably can’t have you working a register. But what if that conviction was 8 years ago, when you were 18, and you have a clean record since? Is it reasonable to still deny you a job for that DUI or petty larceny? Maybe; maybe not.
The problem with background checks is that too many employers have a blanket policy of rejecting applicants with convictions regardless of how relevant it is to the job or how long ago it occurred. And such blanket policies are highly discriminatory against minority groups, who are more likely to be charged and convicted of such crimes than white people are in the same circumstances.
So, in other words, employers absolutely DO NOT have the right to enforce a blanket policy of “English only” or to reject employees based on criminal records unless there is a compelling business reason.
Kinda gilding the lily there.
Unless they’re engaged in unlawful discrimination, employers do not need a compelling business reason to do anything. They can have a policy against blue socks, B students, or criminal records. The English only might be more problematic, given national origin protections in our laws.
It also creates a permanent undercaste of people with any criminal conviction who are now unable to get any job because companies demand to know things that don’t necessarily impact their employment.
And asking on a form doesn’t stop a company from doing background checks.
Timely in that just today in one of those clickbait FB stories, someone talked about how they ask that on their college entrance exam and if you say yes, they throw away your application. However, if you fail to answer the question, or say no, they never bother to check. As the person said "I’m sure there are a number of convicted felons on our campus because they don’t bother to check’.
And even there I would disagree with being able to ask that question and deny convicted felons. Even they have the right to an education and a job.
Or would you rather they just all go homeless, because they can’t get welfare either under the conservative model?
More like fertilizing it, I would think.
Hey, on the bright side, what could possibly go wrong when you have a bunch of felons who are desperate and can’t find work?
I am not saying people with a criminal history should be excluded from employment where there crime is not relevant, I’m just saying under current law I think they can be.
I suppose, had they money to hire a lawyer. And a sympathetic judge. I am told they simply abound, eager to coddle criminals, but I remain skeptical.
We don’t do “corrections”, we place them where paranoia is a survival skill, and any humanity is a weakness to be exploited by the ruthless. We operate under the principle that if you hit a man with a stick often enough and hard enough, he will improve. Hell, if that were true, you could take a relatvely normal guy and make him a saint, if you define that by cringing obedience.
Enough, I digress. But God damn! we are stupid!
But there we are, Liberals making everyone miserable by not letting them ask whether their job applicants are convicted litterbugs. :rolleyes:
You can see it, but it requires an open mind. Even just a little. But while I’m here, here’s a sentence from that article:
"Obama is well aware that claiming employers have a right to turn down employment to job seekers who don’t speak English. "
Wonderful writing, too!