 |
Hello:
When I grew up, a criminal conviction was something to avoid. That was because you couldn't get a job if you had one... But, that's not fair, decried some... So, they passed a law saying that criminal records CAN'T be used against applicants for jobs..
There's a MESSAGE there. It's either (a) exconvicts aren't so bad... or (b) they're putting the WRONG people in jail...
Me?? Clearly it's B. You?
excon
(c) they've paid their debt to society and are forgiven?
Hello Carol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That's a very nice sentiment. It oozes with liberality... As an individual, I commend you for feeling that way. But, as an employer, do you believe that you should be REQUIRED by law to hire one??
excon
In the US a business is required by law to hire an ex-con?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello NK:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Decide for yourself.
A new law that takes effect in Connecticut in October bars government employers or licensing agencies from looking into a prospective employee’s criminal history in connection with most jobs until the person has been “deemed otherwise qualified for the position.” It also requires the agency to take into account the relationship of the crime to the job, the extent of the applicant’s rehabilitation and the time that has elapsed since the conviction or release.
excon
Sounds like it's saying you can't discriminate against someone with a record (within reason). Nothing wrong with that. It's not like an affirmative action type policy to encourage hiring excons. Unless I read that all wrong...
'They' being a couple states .
Clearly the 7-11 that was held up should be required to hire the person who put the gun in the owner's face....or a bank, the embezzler who scammed them. Merv the perv has a right to work at the daycare center.
I think criminal backround checks are constitutional ,and excluding ex-criminals doesn't represent a discrimination. What next ? Will there be a law that says you must hire anyone who applies?
Neither and both . Some excons aren't that bad and there are some people in jail who should not be there and some outside that should be in . I don't think that is particularly relevant in the hiring . Depending on the company there could be many factors involved in a decision to hire beyond which applicant has the best credentials .Quote:
There's a MESSAGE there. It's either (a) exconvicts aren't so bad... or (b) they're putting the WRONG people in jail...
Me?? Clearly it's B. You?
I guess you are asking if we think anti-discrimination based on a person's status as an ex -criminal should be elevated to the level where anti-discrimination in hiring has been codified as a civil rights violation. No ,I don't think so.
Required by law? No. I certainly would give him a chance. I was never disappointed by any of the men and women I dealt with who were doing community service under my supervision. Granted, they weren't hard-core axe murderers, but still... And the library did hire several of them later, one after three community service episodes with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If their square with the house,are qualified, they should have the same chance as everyone else.
But then again,not all excons are created equal,some are more equal then others.
I'm going with C.. everyone deserves equal opportunities when seeking employment,whatever they are... seed,creed or excon.
You may ask then what about the employer,does he deserve full disclosure of a criminal record? I need a few smokes to come up with an answer to that one.
Hello again,
I guess I shouldn't be so circumspect... The point I was making, is that we put NON-VIOLENT pot smokers in jail. THOSE are probably the wonderful exconvicts everybody is talking about... I don't disagree with that characterization, but, I can tell you from experience, not ALL convicts are as wonderful as the next.
You and I, as citizens of this great country, should NOT have to make those distinctions. We should be able to COUNT on the government to have made those distinctions for us, and we should be able to trust them...
But, that isn't the way it is... By diluting the really bad guys with really good guys, WE can't tell 'em apart. THAT doesn't bode well for us. End the drug war.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
yes?Quote:
Catsmine agrees: At least the marijuana campaign
excon, my vision isn't very good these days. Are those two little middle fingers I see sticking up out of the fists holding the bars on your avatar?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Don't they rob convenience stores and snatch little old ladies' purses for pot money? Not all are independently wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Carol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No. And, if they do, they're no longer non-violent, and should be LOCKED up.
excon
Would pot smokers add to our welfare woes? (They'd be too laid-back to work and would use my hard-earned tax dollars to support their habit, which brings me to another question -- is there such a thing as a pot habit?)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Considering the state of the economy today, and the fact that many people with college degrees are applying for jobs at the local 7-11 because there simply isn't any work, I have to say that being an employer, choosing out of a huge stack of resumes, wouldn't be an easy task. (WG, I made that run on sentence just for you. :))
Add into the mix people with convictions, ex-cons, and the choice is even more difficult. Especially if you're expected to look past all of that.
If I put my hard earned money into a business, and I relied on my employees to make sure that business ran well, made money, of course I'm going to consider every aspect of the people applying for the job.
In the end, employers will hire who they want, law or no law. How can anyone prove beyond a doubt that the ex-con was discriminated against when most likely 100's of applications came in for that one job?
Does an employer have the right to now about past convictions? Heck you.
Just my opinion.
Hello again, Carol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There is no "they". Pot smokers run the spectrum of society. There's the lazy bums who would be lazy no matter what. There's the entrepreneurial, who would be entrepreneurial no matter what. And, then there's the working stiffs who like to took up after work instead buying a sixpack. They're just ordinary people.
excon
Sounds like librarians...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What about my addiction question?
(I'm trying to learn about this.)
Hello again, Carol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's a habit - not an addiction.
excon
What's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I've heard there is a psychological addiction.
Withdrawal symptoms have no physiological cause, other than psychosomatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The id (self) says, "I wants another toke." The superego (conscience) says, "No." Isn't the discussion between them psychological?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
There is no physical addiction?
I can assure you there is an addiction . The good news is that it can be overcome.
The singular crime of smoking pot should not merit either a jail term or permanent record. That is my sole concession in this debate. An employer who hires a known pot smoker to drive a truck or run heavy equipment deserves what happens .
Would that same reasoning apply to those that drink ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It does.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Addiction is addiction, legal or illegal. That's the only line, legality.
So your saying that persons that might drink on their off hours should be in a position of the evil eye by employers and the ones that hire them get what they deserve ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Do those persons drink only during their off hours, or do they bring their drinking into the workplace? Will you hire one of the latter to drive one of your delivery trucks?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
In the same way, do pot smokers smoke only during their off hours?
Is everyone who drinks an alcohol? Is everyone who drinks breaking the law? Is everyone who smokes pot breaking the law? Is there a difference between the two (the alcoholic and the pot smoker)?
Exactly. To me the dangerous person on the job is the one impaired. Doesn't matter what they are on. But if a person does it after hours as ex has been suggesting then what's the difference ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Apples and oranges . Marijuana stays in your system much longer than alcohol because THC is fat soluble.It stores in the fat cells of the liver,the kidneys, the brain.
But the same principle applies. If an employer knowingly hires a drunk to operate equipment then the employer deserves the liability risk.
Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Many people drink.
Many people smoke pot.
If they do it in their off hours, I don't have a problem with it. There is a matter of legality though. Drinking isn't illegal, unless you choose to drive. Pot is illegal.
It's not up to me to make the law. Heck, I can't even vote. Also, in Canada, pot is illegal, but if you're caught smoking it, the worst that will happen is a slap on the wrist. There are bigger fish to fry.
Now, if a person drinks or smokes pot on the job, you, that's an issue. It should be an issue. It has an effect on your abilities to think, walk, talk etc. etc. Most jobs require at least a modicum of thought.
Would I care if the people I work with drink or smoke pot? No, not unless they're drunk or stoned on the job. If they do that, than they're putting me at risk. I don't want a metal beam dropped on my head because someone was too drunk to know which lever to push. ;)
Bottom line is this. Alcohol isn't illegal. Pot is illegal. Neither should be consumed while working, legal or not, IMO. :)
agreesQuote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
THC IS stored in the fatty tissues and can be DETECTED by a drug test the day after smoking... But, if a person smoked the night before, he's not high in the morning.
Nobody says pot should be smoked at work, that it should be given to children, that people should operate heavy machinery while stoned, and that they should hold up the corner 7/Eleven.
excon
As a businessman, does it increase my liability more to have a driver who was up until early morning smoking, who is suffering from fatigue, or drinking, who is suffering from fatigue and dehydration? If the driver partied very late and is still inebriated is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Cats:
Absent other evidence of misconduct, I don't think what your employees do in their off time increases your liability at all.
excon
I'd personally prefer one who's sleepy than one who's hung over. Red Bull can help with the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
All I know is the next excon to be working next to you might be Charlie Rangel.
Rangel summoned by special ethics panel for violations
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM. |