Last week the Federal Trade Commission joined with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to tell employers that background checks could have a "disparate impact" on black people and expose private firms to lawsuits.

Threatening aggressive enforcement, the agencies released new compliance guidelines: "Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know:" They advise employers to "take special care when basing employment decisions on background problems that may be more common among people of a certain race."

A high ranking EEOC enforcement official warns employers, “asking a prospective employee if they are a murder, rapist, bank robber, child abuser, drug smuggler, or have been convicted of any known felony risks a hefty fine, loss of business license, or imprisonment for up to 12 years upon conviction.” The unnamed official went on to add, “We mean business here at the EEOC. Discriminatory hiring practices today will get you nothing but a felony record. And that, my friend, will destroy any chance you have of getting a high paying government job once you're released.”

*President Obama was still out of cell phone range somewhere on the 18th green and unable to comment.

I am confused. If I cannot ask the former felon about his high crime against society caused by the racial bias the fellow faced throughout his criminal life, then how can I determine if the thief, murderer, rapist is the despicable human I need to provide exemplary care to my clients? I should be banned from asking about advanced degrees, and exemplary past work history, industry awards, and charitable volunteer activities so I know to "stay clear" of such scum.

Why not simply ban all questions at interviews, in order to avoid the possibility of asking discriminatory ones? After all, asking about skills and experience might also have a negative impact on favored victim groups those who are underrepresented in said skills and experience. Come to think of it, even asking for a résumé might have a negative impact. And what of those who cannot write? Asking them to fill out an application might have similar impact. Dear me, will the opportunities for increasing FTC and EEOC budgets sensitivity never end?

Have we discussed the opposable thumb yet? Speciesists...<spit>

Comrade Knight of Felinicity, not only should all interview questions be eliminated, interviews should be happy, fun occasions, and equally fun for ALL participants.

Wouldn't you agree?

R.O.C.K. in the USSA wrote:

interview.jpg

Comrade Knight of Felinicity, not only should all interview questions be eliminated, interviews should be happy, fun occasions, and equally fun for ALL participants.

Wouldn't you agree?

Oh yeah. Rob Ford style. Hooch, hash, horse, hooker, Hennessy, hookah, and HR!

R.O.C.K. in the USSA wrote:

interview.jpg

Comrade Knight of Felinicity, not only should all interview questions be eliminated, interviews should be happy, fun occasions, and equally fun for ALL participants.

Wouldn't you agree?

Indeed ... until someone files a complaint that the interviewer had more fun than the interviewee (or vice versa). I suppose there must be funometers at all interviews to be sure amounts of fun are kept equal.

But then again, the whole concept of "interviewing" is elitist, placing interviewers in positions of control over interviewees (or vice versa). Perhaps jobs paychecks should just be given out at random to anyone who asks for one.

Oh my, what fun it is to be an EEOC planner! I just humbly hope I am not using more than my share of fun and thereby causing fun inequality.

RedDiaperette wrote:

R.O.C.K. in the USSA wrote:

The attachment interview.jpg is no longer available

Comrade Knight of Felinicity, not only should all interview questions be eliminated, interviews should be happy, fun occasions, and equally fun for ALL participants.

Wouldn't you agree?

Indeed ... until someone files a complaint that the interviewer had more fun than the interviewee (or vice versa). I suppose there must be funometers at all interviews to be sure amounts of fun are kept equal.

But then again, the whole concept of "interviewing" is elitist, placing interviewers in positions of control over interviewees (or vice versa). Perhaps jobs paychecks should just be given out at random to anyone who asks for one.

Oh my, what fun it is to be an EEOC planner! I just humbly hope I am not using more than my share of fun and thereby causing fun inequality.

Comrade and fellow quadruped RedDiaperette...

FYI: I should point out the existence of a Gross National Happiness Index in Bhutan. Just how this tiny country has taken the lead in this area of progressive thought I have no idea. But I'm sure our leaders in Washington are up to speed on this and planning a similar commission as I type this comment. Just thought you'd like to know.

GNH has only been officially used in Bhutan, where a [highlight=#ffff99]Gross National Happiness Commission[/highlight] is charged reviewing policy decisions and allocation of resources. [1]. In 2013, with a new administration, the country shifted the focus from spreading GNH globally to the well-being of people within Bhutan.