Target changes hiring policy after discrimination allegations

There are two questions which popped into my mind when I saw this story; 1) How large would the lawsuit be if Target knowingly hired a person with a criminal background and s/he went on to harm customers or employees? 2) Why can't people with criminal backgrounds get guns if people with criminal backgrounds are apparently no threat and can safely be hired? (no, I am not advocating for criminals to get guns, I'm questioning the contradiction)

 

How dare you discriminate against a potential voter for the DNC.....And didn't you know, if you're a DNCer you shouldn't own a gun anyways??? Did you miss a meeting or two??

 

So blacks and Hispanics commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country........Target has a racially blind, non-discriminatory policy of not hiring criminals.........Target submits to a ridiculous lawsuit and pays out millions. God help us........the rest of the world must be laughing their asses off at how silly we have become.

 

I am not interested in this avenue of litigation. I think this ought to be seen as a public policy/ social issue and we ought to look for creative incentives as a response as opposed to a court ordered one.

Make no mistake. The virtual hiring freeze/ blacklisting on ex cons we have going on in this country is a monumental law and order problem. If they cannot get jobs no matter how hard they try, then they know how to make money without one.....

Once they get released, its always private war between desperation and willpower. This is a war of attrition we set up in our prison system and in our litigation driven corporate marketplace, and law and order will almost always lose, but nobody ever proposes any ideas to diffuse this problem. Cliches on pounding the pavement, or lessons on 'interview skills' meet up with corporate policies and a series of hard circumstances that make it all but impossible to get enough employment to pay rent and get food for months or years. They don't come out with a car, a great resume, a nice stable housing situation and firm supportive family and friends ties, or the freedom to move to where jobs might be.

That criminal background check is a total hopekiller and turns a series of dead end streets they always fought, into another form or economic prison. Its the best friend recidivist crime has ever had.

No matter what our ideology or party affiliation, we have to look at this issue. We incarcerate way too many people not to.

 

So you are not able to or do not want to engage in an honest debate so you jump on the old anyone who is bad must be a Democrat pony!

Ever try honesty in discussions..?

 

I wanted to be a center for an NBA team such as the Celtics but I am height challenged so it is not fair so where are my millions in compensation?

 

I'm just thinking out loud here and know it won't work in a lot of situations, but it just might work in some.

Let's say my kid, friend or neighbor has a criminal history and can't get a job but I feel s/he's totally rehabbed, learned his lesson and wants to go straight, then I should be able to vouch for him/her and be financially responsible if he screws up, it would sorta be like co-signing a loan and putting up bail for someone. If I'm willing to have some financial skin in the game then maybe employers would take the risk and hire someone with a criminal background.

Like I said, I'm just throwing this out there.

 

It’s absolutely incredible, isn’t it?

Which group really won WWII? It certainly wasn’t the West.

 

Thanks liberals !

 

My boss and I were just talking about this and he brought up the fact that most people in management in this company, and many others, would never be hired without some sort of degree and it could be a degree in anything, even gender studies. A degree shows a degree of character much as a criminal record does.

Target laid out the qualifications for their jobs, race and color were not mentioned.

 

Do we view prisons as a place for rehabilitation, or not? What will these criminals do after they are out of jail? do we want them to be a positive contributor to the society, or are we going to cast them off into a life of crimes in order to exist?? What kind of crime would we considered so bad where the criminal should not required a second chance and if that is the case, should we not just put them in jail forever and have the taxpayers pay for their "free" room and board, food, medical care, etc?? Employer should review this type of applicant on a case a case basis and make a determination as to the risk involved. I don't believe that there should be a quota to be met.

 

What about people with a degree that became a criminal? Say the person have a master degree in engineering. One day, this person committed negligent homocide and spend a short time in prison. Is this person now no longer worthy of being hired?

 

And, of course, the next step is that they hire someone with a criminal background, that person commits a crime against a customer, then the customers sues Target saying "how could you hire people with criminal backgrounds?!?!"

 

I agree. The whole premise is preposterous. There was nothing discriminatory about Target's policy. And if Target's "hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept blacks and Hispanics from getting entry-level jobs at its stores", why is Target to blame.... It's that lack-of-personal-responsibility thing rearing its ugly head again.

You make some very good points.

People with that type of support system --a parent, neighbor, or friend willing to go to bat for them like that-- are probably less likely to become criminals in the first place....

I'm not bashing or discounting your suggestion at all, I'm just wondering what kind of family, friends, and neighbors a recently released criminal would have who'd be willing to go to bat for them like that. Heck, even the financial guru Clark Howard frequently advises folks not to co-sign for their kids, spouses, and definitely not friends.

 

You have a good point, and if it was MY company I'd make the reviews on a case by case basis, but I'd want the final say, not the say of some manager I may not know who is 2000 miles away. Also, in a company as large as Target one manager in state A may be more strict or lenient than manager in state B and that would lead to problems. So in a smallish company what we both think is the best solution, in a larger company where consistency is hard to manage, our solution isn't practical.

As for the convicted murderer with the engineering degree, same as what I said above.

 

"Target is paying more than $3.7 million to settle a lawsuit that said its hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept blacks and Hispanics from getting entry-level jobs at its stores."

Nevermind merit, experience, professionalism, etc... Speaking of which, after an interview with the manager, then the regional manager, and then the sales president of the company I'm looking to hire on at, I just submitted all of my information this morning so they could run a background check on me. When I pass that, next will be a drug test. OH THE HORROR! A background check and drug test??? What the hell is wrong with these people, are they looking to hire decent people who didn't f*ck up in life or something?

 

So the criminal "justice system" that's operated by racists frames and locks up countless minorities so that they won't be able to participate in the economic and political life of the country. And then the racists get ticked off when such a victim of their discriminatory policies tries to get a minimum wage job and try to get his life back on track.

 

The criminal justice system is not 'racist' against 'people of color'.........if anything it is racist against Whites. I direct you to the verdicts against the killers of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman and Kate Steinle as perfect examples.

 

A company should never be required to hire a criminal. They shouldn't even be required to hire anyone that doesn't meet the qualifications of the job or have lower merits and experience than the person next to them. If you think criminals deserve a second chance then open your own company and hire them. We'll see how long you last.

 

The problem being many companies would shy away from a candidate as soon as they see a conviction on a job application. So your false scenario of professionalism and whatever else don't hunt. Note though you are completely silence on what is supposed to happen to these people who f*ck you their lives? A drunk driver that committed negligent homocide isn't the same as murderer. Are you saying we should discard this person? How would the person survives? being homeless? being a nuisance and panhandle? or resort to a life of crimes to survive. Your over simplistic view doesn't add to the discussion.

 

Start a league for short players. You'll become a billionaire.

But this is America, where racists still want to keep people in slavery.

 

That should up to the company hiring. But they shouldn't be required to hire that person for being a criminal.

How in the hell did we ever get to the point that one political party could fall so far that they began to coddle weirdos, rejects, criminals, and illegals?

 

We could have a shorter season and shorter playoffs.

Would he gave to gave shorter time outs?

 

Racists? Slavery? Would you hire a person with a criminal background to babysit your kids or clean your house while you disappear for an entire day? Don't even bother saying you would because we know you wouldn't.

BTW, when you speak of slavery, which race is being enslaved and why? You guys were perfectly fine shutting down a business and making their owners unemployed when they wouldn't make a cake, but now you're a tad upset that being a convicted criminal disqualifies someone from a job and that includes straight, white conservative catholic criminals.

 

Give me a list of minorities who are locked up just for being a minority and then you can cry.