Obama calls racism on criminal background checks

[JuergenG]

Race card played nicely.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/now-its-racist-to-pass-on-hiring-ex-cons/

So how about background checks for legal gun owners, Mr. President? These folks aren't even ex-cons as they'd be prohibited persons.

[Olt d.R.]

He is not really interested in racism, except when it is concerning black people,

meaning his voters.

His remarks on the Trayvon Martin case, which is in its decisive part on court right now,

are proofing this.

[Tyr13]

I am just dreaming here, but if these fractions are correct

1 out of 106 white

1 out of 36 hispanic

1 out of 15 black

men are in jail wouldn't it be logical to sue the police for creating a racially biased criminal arrest record ? There would be a marvelous opportunity for internal witchhunts and interdepartmental warfare.

Introducing:

In the red corner, wearing Brahmin pants : liberal outrage against racial profiling by Police....

In the blue corner, wearing tactical black : federal crusader against criminal terrorism

I'll spring for Pop-Corn

[Gast]

So how about background checks for legal gun owners, Mr. President? These folks aren't even ex-cons as they'd be prohibited persons.

you do not understand the logic behind it...:

criminal background checks are racist...

gun background checks are done on racist...

gun owners are racist...

atleast that is what Liberals think...

I am just dreaming here, but if these fractions are correct

1 out of 106 white

1 out of 36 hispanic

1 out of 15 black

men are in jail wouldn't it be logical to sue the police for creating a racially biased criminal arrest record ? There would be a marvelous opportunity for internal witchhunts and interdepartmental warfare.

just end the 'war on drugs' (and by Afgahn extentions the phony 'war on terror' for opium) and the numbers change dramatically...

blacks are in this situtation because all up to The (current) White (collar) Man in the WH wants them to be in that situation...

becasue he than can play the race card... and make lots of money on drugs, drug prohibition, prison industrial complex, US drug cartels, US opium, gun running, destabilising Mexico to force more people over the border to bring the country even more down, pay for the secret 'war on The People' and make it ripe for the picking by the FED owners...

[Chiron]

As always, the article only shows partial information.

In case of BMW, the applicants were former employees of BMW, some for more than 14 years. When BMW "restructured" their South Carolina plant, the workers needed to re-apply at the now new contractor of the plant:

Some of the employees had worked at the BMW facility for several years, working for the various logistics services providers used by BMW since the plant opened in 1994, according to the suit.

One claimant had worked at the BMW facility for 14 years, and another had worked at the BMW facility for 12 years, according to the suit.

Now, one must understand the idea and function of the background check. A company can only reject an applicant's application when the requirement for the absence of a certain felony that they are imposing is job-related and consistent with business necessity. For example: If you are a retailer, you can reject someone based on the fact that he is a thief. You cannot reject a factory worker, that has had a tax or drug felony.

The key behind the BMW complaint is, that workers, you have worked for BMW before without any complaint, took a charge in their criminal records while they were working and now cannot re-apply. Since they were working for BMW before, the fact that the worker's felony is unbearable for BMW regarding business necessaity can hardly be established.

A compareable example would be a german factory worker at mercedes who would be fired because he got caught smokingp pot in his free time - I would wonder if this would be enough ground to fire someone.

In case of the Dollar Retail Store, one woman had a false felony in her records. Even after it was made clear to Dollar General that the felony was stated incorrectly, the application was still rejected based on the (false) background check.

The other woman that sues Dollar Retail Store was rejected because of a felony six years ago. Even though the nature of the felony itself would be a justification for the rejection, Dollar Retail Store was not allowed to reject her. Why? Because she had worked without any complaint at another retailer for the last 4 years.

Therefore, BWM and Dollar Retail Store are not being sued because they are using "racial" background checks. They are being sued because they reject black people because of their felonies, even though these felonies are not sufficient or not adequate to justify a rejection.

Employers must carefully evaluate the age and nature of convictions when using such information to make employment decisions.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-11-13.cfm

Therefore, the established causality that is "blacks have more felonies, therefore background checks are racist" is wrong.

The logic behind this issue actually is: "Blacks tend to have a larger probability for a felony on their criminal records. By using these felonies, regardless of the fact that these felonies are not sufficient to terminate or decline a job position, blacks are more prone to be fired upon irrelevant/inadequate felonies.Thus, the practice of using almost any felony to decline a job offer is more disadvantaging to blacks than to white. Therefore, this practice can be at odds with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act"

I do not know enough about american law to judge the legal plausability of that logic, but I strongly disagree with the very "plain and simple" headline of the Washington Times: "Obama calls racism on criminal bacground checks". "Obama" himself does nothing in this matter since the EEOC is a federal agencie, installed decades ago and everybody who feels discriminated can file a complaint. The article itself seems biased since it excludes details that can be easily understood from the press release from the EEOC and the article ends as a comment, not a neutral display of news.

As always, there seems to be more gray than just black and white.

[Gast]

So they kick people because they pushed their (obviously black) Grandma from the (fill in yourself) when they were little children.

Fine. If they think it's more subtile than in the sixties, I have only 2 words: YOU FAIL!

And besides, that "spies" should at least be able to read, if I took Chirons text correct. Using wrong felonies or felonies that don't fit to the job. These tinhorns