cooper wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 3:07 pm
The successful business owners of the future will need to have good HR skills or the ability of speak Spanish.
I laughed when I read this, but you're not wrong.
My employer got really lax over the pandemic when it came to background checks... credit, criminal history, etc. Now they are paying the price and they are finding they cannot walk it back.
Our HR department tripled in size since then.
0 x
I self-identify as a conspiracy theorist. My pronouns are told/you/so.
mike wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 2:27 pm
I think that criminal background is one of the greatest barriers to employment these days. When posting jobs to Indeed, one of the questions asked is whether their system can invite people to apply who have a criminal background. There are massive amounts of job-seekers who have a background.
We have hired a couple of them. One worked out well and has been with my company for several years. The background was armed bank robbery. Another we just hired, and we shall see. The background included DUIs, theft, and most concerningly pulling a shotgun on someone. The occurrences were 6-10 years ago, incurred no jail time, and the person has since started a family and had no further offenses, apparently reforming herself to some extent.
A background can be overcome. It helps when the applicant is totally upfront with their record. But it is still a risk, and I think it is one of the biggest hurdles to employment these days.
I appreciate this. Christians should be the ones who hold out hope that people can change. Another group to consider is the formerly incarcerated. Finding employment can be a key component of a parole plan, so it is a real need. This is another way to serve "the least of these, my brothers" as Jesus said.
mike wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:22 pm
Are you allowed to discriminate against smokers when hiring?
Yes you can. At least according to Federal law. Because smokers are not a "protected class" under anti-discrimination laws.
Just like you can discriminate against and not hire anyone who does drugs. Drug users are not a protected class either. And there are many employers who do drug testing as a part of the hiring process. Even for legal drugs like pot in the states where it is legal.
But some states are getting more restrictive. Here in Washington it is legal to smoke pot but employers used to be able to require drug testing and not hire pot smokers. That just changed effective 2024 and now they can't discriminate for pot smoking during off-work hours but they can prohibit pot use on the job and can fire you if you are caught smoking pot on the job.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
But once you have given someone a CONDITIONAL offer of employment you are free to do background checks on that individual and rescind your CONDITIONAL offer of employment based on the results of the background check.
Once again, Ken, you get this wrong.
The FCO also prohibits covered employers from ever considering the following:
An arrest not leading to a conviction, except for unresolved arrests.
Participation in a diversion or deferral of judgment program.
A conviction that has been dismissed, expunged, otherwise invalidated, or inoperative.
A conviction in the juvenile justice system.
An offense other than a felony or misdemeanor, such as an infraction.
A conviction that is more than 7 years old (unless the position being considered supervises minors or dependent adults).
A conviction for decriminalized conduct, including the non-commercial use and cultivation of cannabis.
If hiring in SF you’d better be very careful not to violate the law above. Yes, there is a very narrow exception for daycares or nursing homes.
Do you think someone should be permanently barred from employment simply because they were once arrested but not convicted? Say someone who was arrested during a peace protest or anti-abortion protest or selling raw milk without a license? But then the charges were dropped and nothing came of it?
Or because they stole a magazine from a convenience store when they were 12 and got arrested for it as a juvenile? Should that follow them the rest of their life?
I never said one way or another. I would prefer the freedom to avoid people with a history of drug dealing, though.
I did say that SF requires you to ignore even things like murder and robbery. If a 17 year old robs and murders someone - you must ignore that year later. If a 25 year old murders someone, you must ignore that when they’re 32.
mike wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:22 pm
Are you allowed to discriminate against smokers when hiring?
Yes you can. At least according to Federal law. Because smokers are not a "protected class" under anti-discrimination laws.
Just like you can discriminate against and not hire anyone who does drugs. Drug users are not a protected class either. And there are many employers who do drug testing as a part of the hiring process. Even for legal drugs like pot in the states where it is legal.
But some states are getting more restrictive. Here in Washington it is legal to smoke pot but employers used to be able to require drug testing and not hire pot smokers. That just changed effective 2024 and now they can't discriminate for pot smoking during off-work hours but they can prohibit pot use on the job and can fire you if you are caught smoking pot on the job.
Absolutely ridiculous. Why should I be forced to hire someone who chooses to get high?
mike wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 5:22 pm
Are you allowed to discriminate against smokers when hiring?
Yes you can. At least according to Federal law. Because smokers are not a "protected class" under anti-discrimination laws.
Just like you can discriminate against and not hire anyone who does drugs. Drug users are not a protected class either. And there are many employers who do drug testing as a part of the hiring process. Even for legal drugs like pot in the states where it is legal.
But some states are getting more restrictive. Here in Washington it is legal to smoke pot but employers used to be able to require drug testing and not hire pot smokers. That just changed effective 2024 and now they can't discriminate for pot smoking during off-work hours but they can prohibit pot use on the job and can fire you if you are caught smoking pot on the job.
Absolutely ridiculous. Why should I be forced to hire someone who chooses to get high?
Do you really think that as an employer it is your RIGHT to dictate the behavior and activities of your employees when they are NOT at work? That's pretty intrusive.
I would equally ask why should I be forced to hire someone who drives a gas guzzling car and attends a Holdeman Church? If I happen to disapprove of those things. Should I have the right to reach out into my employee's private lives and set standards of conduct for them when they are not working for me? In Washington State the answer to that question is no. Employers don't have the right to regulate the lives of their employees when they are not at work. Which seems fair to me.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Yes you can. At least according to Federal law. Because smokers are not a "protected class" under anti-discrimination laws.
Just like you can discriminate against and not hire anyone who does drugs. Drug users are not a protected class either. And there are many employers who do drug testing as a part of the hiring process. Even for legal drugs like pot in the states where it is legal.
But some states are getting more restrictive. Here in Washington it is legal to smoke pot but employers used to be able to require drug testing and not hire pot smokers. That just changed effective 2024 and now they can't discriminate for pot smoking during off-work hours but they can prohibit pot use on the job and can fire you if you are caught smoking pot on the job.
Absolutely ridiculous. Why should I be forced to hire someone who chooses to get high?
Do you really think that as an employer it is your RIGHT to dictate the behavior and activities of your employees when they are NOT at work? That's pretty intrusive.
I would equally ask why should I be forced to hire someone who drives a gas guzzling car and attends a Holdeman Church? If I happen to disapprove of those things. Should I have the right to reach out into my employee's private lives and set standards of conduct for them when they are not working for me? In Washington State the answer to that question is no. Employers don't have the right to regulate the lives of their employees when they are not at work. Which seems fair to me.
I think you should totally have the right to not hire a person who has removed the emissions control system from his pickup and drives it on the road in violation of federal law.
