- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Ban the Box" is a stupid idea in today's tort environment--JBE knows this
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:04 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:04 am
John Bel following his big government beliefs pushed a "ban the box" law onto the books concerning employment with state government.
He wants to expand this to all employers.
What he is pushing is that employers should not be allowed to ask about the criminal activity and criminal convictions of potential employees.
Get this---he is saying that a bank should not be allowed to inquire about the criminal convictions of a potential employee that might have been a convicted bank robber.
Legislators should insist if the big government, radical leftist Edwards pushes this again that past history of employees can not used as evidence in civil matters against employers. Should a company that employs a convicted drunk unknowingly be found liable for the drunk's action as an employee if he is drunk on the job unknowingly?
He is messing with good employment practices that protect the public by tying the hands of employers in screening their employees.
JBE is left of HRC.
He wants to expand this to all employers.
What he is pushing is that employers should not be allowed to ask about the criminal activity and criminal convictions of potential employees.
Get this---he is saying that a bank should not be allowed to inquire about the criminal convictions of a potential employee that might have been a convicted bank robber.
Legislators should insist if the big government, radical leftist Edwards pushes this again that past history of employees can not used as evidence in civil matters against employers. Should a company that employs a convicted drunk unknowingly be found liable for the drunk's action as an employee if he is drunk on the job unknowingly?
He is messing with good employment practices that protect the public by tying the hands of employers in screening their employees.
JBE is left of HRC.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:05 am
8
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:06 am to I B Freeman
He's a moron but this is already reality in a lot of places.
Congrats La on electing the white Obama.
Congrats La on electing the white Obama.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:07 am to I B Freeman
quote:
What he is pushing is that employers should not be allowed to ask about the criminal activity and criminal convictions of potential employees.
This is a great idea. Sir have you ever been arrested for crimes against children? Oh wait I can't ask that. Welcome to our Kindergarten. fricking stupid!
If they are going to ban a box, remove race from all government documents. BOOM, no more affirmative action. (in theory)
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:08 am to CoachChappy
JBE honor code though
vitter fricked hookers, JBE fricks la citizens
vitter fricked hookers, JBE fricks la citizens
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:09 am to CoachChappy
You know Coach that today if there is an unclassified state employee working with children the state cannot ask about his prior felony convictions.
They passed this law this year.
They passed this law this year.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:09 am to Wtodd
quote:yeah, you have a mental giant over there in the shunshine state.
He's a moron but this is already reality in a lot of places. Congrats La on electing the white Obama.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:09 am to I B Freeman
The same rule effectively applies to property managers when it comes to investigating potential tenants. It's absurd.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:12 am to I B Freeman
While I think the whole concept is retarded (I'm against any employment restrictions, racial or otherwise), that is not my understanding of Ban the Box.
I believe it is against that being on the application and used to pre-screen. Once the person gets to the interview stage, those questions are fair game.
The logic being, that a lot of good hires would be made if they made it to the interview and got to see what a great person they were.
It's bullshite, but let's be accurate.
I believe it is against that being on the application and used to pre-screen. Once the person gets to the interview stage, those questions are fair game.
The logic being, that a lot of good hires would be made if they made it to the interview and got to see what a great person they were.
It's bullshite, but let's be accurate.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:14 am to I B Freeman
quote:
You know Coach that today if there is an unclassified state employee working with children the state cannot ask about his prior felony convictions.
They passed this law this year.
I cannot believe that. Please provide a link for me. I have to see it myself to believe it. (I'm not lying you are lying. I just have to see it.)
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:16 am to I B Freeman
Ban the box is just for the application and initial interviews.
An employer can still require a background check to be passed prior to hire. So bank robbers won't get hired.
The problem is that the hiring manager winds up wasting his time with applicants who will won't meet the final requirements.
An employer can still require a background check to be passed prior to hire. So bank robbers won't get hired.
The problem is that the hiring manager winds up wasting his time with applicants who will won't meet the final requirements.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:21 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:19 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
While I think the whole concept is retarded (I'm against any employment restrictions, racial or otherwise), that is not my understanding of Ban the Box.
I believe it is against that being on the application and used to pre-screen. Once the person gets to the interview stage, those questions are fair game.
The logic being, that a lot of good hires would be made if they made it to the interview and got to see what a great person they were.
It's bullshite, but let's be accurate.
This is my understanding as well, and I agree - I'm not a fan because I don't think it'll change much and I generally don't like government interference in private business. I do, however, think it would be very beneficial to everyone if ex-cons became contributing members of society rather than ending up back in prison, and if someone could prove to me that this policy would go a long way in doing that, I might change my mind.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:20 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:20 am to skinny domino
quote:
yeah, you have a mental giant over there in the shunshine state
Wut??? You really don't want to compare JBE & Rick Scott. While Scott can't talk for shite publicly, he's done a pretty good job as Gov.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:21 am to tigerlaw
I'd like to know what his thoughts are on the Character and Fitness evaluation doctors and lawyers (potential) have to submit to in order to even sit for the BAR/Boards? Should we just do away with those as well.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:24 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:23 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Ban the box is just for the application and initial interviews.
An employer can still require a background check to be passed prior to hire. So bank robbers won't get hired.
The problem is that the hiring manager winds up wasting his time with applicants who will won't meet the final requirements.
This makes much more sense. With that said, I'm not sure why we should waste employer's time with an interview if they know going in that they're not hiring someone with a criminal background. The employer is just going to waste a lot of time if they go through the whole process and later find out the person has a criminal history that precludes them from the job. Then they have to go through the entire process with another person.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:26 am
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:30 am to TigernMS12
quote:
I'd like to know what his thoughts are on the Character and Fitness evaluation doctors and lawyers (potential) have to submit to in order to even sit for the BAR/Boards? Should we just do away with those as well.
quote:
I'd like to know what his thoughts are on the Character and Fitness evaluation doctors and lawyers (potential) have to submit to in order to even sit for the BAR/Boards? Should we just do away with those as well.
That's an interesting point. I suppose the counter-argument is that (at least in Louisiana) applicants to the bar can offer an explanation to the Louisiana Supreme Court and they will consider extraneous circumstances (if any). Applicants to the bar aren't excluded simply because they check a "box."
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:30 am to tigerlaw
quote:
I do, however, think it would be very beneficial to everyone if ex-cons became contributing members of society rather than ending up back in prison,
Oh come on. If I'm hiring a guy, and i got through multiple rounds of interviews and decided to extend an offer, and then I find out that he was a convicted felon, I'd be pissed. Does honesty mean anything? I'd heave a hell of a lot more respect for someone that comes in and is upfront about something like that. Integrity is lost on the left.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:36 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Get this---he is saying that a bank should not be allowed to inquire about the criminal convictions of a potential employee that might have been a convicted bank robber.
Given you didn't provide a link, it's hard to validate your claim here. Most "Ban the Box" laws state that you can't perform a background check until after a conditional offer to a candidate is made. My guess is this is standard policy for most companies anyway.
FWIW, I support grass roots "Ban the Box" campaigns by private groups to private companies. But the gov needs to stay out of it.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:36 am to I B Freeman
LOL, who in the frick actually voted for JBE? Those people should be rounded up and forced into camps.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:39 am to tigerlaw
quote:
Applicants to the bar aren't excluded simply because they check a "box."
I don't know how the LA state BAR handles things, but in MS, if you have any sort of crime/arrest for something considered dishonest (fraud, theft, etc.) then you aren't sitting for the bar. You can get away with a DUI or possession type things from being young and stupid, but they take crimes that indicate dishonesty extremely serious, as they should considering most will manage client trust accounts. Another thing that will get you immediately flagged is if you left something off your disclosures to the law school because it is seen as deceitful, even if it was something they would otherwise find trivial.
This post was edited on 12/2/16 at 10:41 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News