pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Obama Says Background Checks Are Discriminating Against Minorities, Threatens To Sue
#21
God's Country;82046 Wrote:Welcome to the new normal, where constitutional rights are subject to review by the king and his lords.

Rights become privilege and privileges become rights….to some.

You have no constitutional right to a job. You want to work for a company that requires a background check, submit to the background check. If you do not, then do not apply.

A company has the right to hire/fire/keep anyone they want for any reason they choose.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#22
Camper;82050 Wrote:
God's Country;82046 Wrote:Welcome to the new normal, where constitutional rights are subject to review by the king and his lords.

Rights become privilege and privileges become rights….to some.

You have no constitutional right to a job. You want to work for a company that requires a background check, submit to the background check. If you do not, then do not apply.

A company has the right to hire/fire/keep anyone they want for any reason they choose.

Except in bizarro world, you do have the right to a job. I believe that was one of the platforms that Obama hasn't stopped campaigning on.
Reply
#23
51158;81895 Wrote:This isn't going to go over well, But

I don't see it as rasist, but we do go too far on background info IMHO, a cable guy, he's basically a tradesman, if he has paid his debt to society then who are we to judge. The problem is it's a BIG IF with the court system the way it is.

If basic working with your hands jobs are removed from people with less than stellar reps, they'll earn they're money another way, and so it continues.

Instead of suing the background checking people, which is a result of the courts and the parole board fuckin-up Sue the big city court systems..Majority of violent crime happens in the major cities. and they let the thugs walk

Just a quick look found this..Link


In other words, they're not looking for a job at a nuclear facility. If they paid there debt then what's done is done, they need to work too..

Welp time for chores...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...86614.html

The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits. This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard.

G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists "that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII" and is pressuring the company "to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades."
NRA life member/ILA/PVA/Whittington Center sponsor
GOA member/Second Amendment Foundation member
NAHC life member
KECA founding committee member
http://www.experienceelkcountry.com/
Reply
#24
streaker69;82060 Wrote:
Camper;82050 Wrote:You have no constitutional right to a job. You want to work for a company that requires a background check, submit to the background check. If you do not, then do not apply.

A company has the right to hire/fire/keep anyone they want for any reason they choose.

Except in bizarro world, you do have the right to a job. I believe that was one of the platforms that Obama hasn't stopped campaigning on.

That's what I meant.

Rights become a privilege.

My right to own a gun is subject to a background check..therefore a privilege.
My right to carry one subject to a license therefore a privilege.

Privileges becomes rights...to some.
In this case the poor discriminated criminal minorities.
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#25
I have no problem with background checks.... I don't want to work with sex offenders. I do have a huge problem with blacks getting off the hook because they're black. THAT angers me.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#26
Camper;82041 Wrote:
51158;81928 Wrote:I knew it would go there! not even 1 post between us.
Apply a little common sense would ya.

Cable installers, phone installers, and any number of tradesmen such as these frequently enter the homes of their customers to perform their work.

Don't you, as the customer, require some sort of reasonable expectation that the person the company is sending to do work inside your home is not a convicted felon, a person with a history of criminal activity or one suspected of engaging in the same?

Don't you, as the employer, require some sort of reasonable expectation that the person you are hiring is not a convicted felon, a person with a history of criminal activity or one suspected of engaging in the same?

If you own a plumbing business and send someone to my house who steals something or rapes my wife/child or kills my dog, you can guarantee that not only am I going after them for responsibility, but I am going after YOU for sending this type of person to my home because that individual represents you and your company, and was acting in your companies behalf. And, I will likely win because that is the way our legal system is set up, and companies have some responsibility for the actions of their employees.

I do not disagree that former felons need work, and should be employed in order to stay on the path to being a useful member of society, but to say that background checks are useless and unnecessary is quite frankly...false.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't necessarily agree.
Where do we draw the line?
Sending a smoker to a non-smokers house could get a nasty phone call from a costumer, The smell made them literally sick.
Drug testing is another approach into someones private life, Sure it's illegal but alcohol is much more dangerous (IMO) and costly, so why not test for alcohol.
I know I'm ridiculous with my examples but where does it end, If somebody has "as you put it" ( a person with a history of criminal activity or one suspected of engaging in the same )
He shouldn't be walking around the streets..But somebody that did something stupid at 18 or 20 yo shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of his life..

I don't disagree that there are dangers, I just disagree on how best deal with the dangers..

On average a new hire will never go out on service calls alone, unless the boss knew the guy, they're always partnered with somebody for at least a little while till the company feels comfortable with the new guy.

This is a gun forum we all know their are dangers out there and you can't prevent every bad thing from happening.

From what I've been told, When a prospective employer call a previous employer about an applicant, the previous Employer can't say nothing more than yes santa claus worked here and his attendance record..
With the Second Amendment saying what it says, Why isn't the Federal Government Suing NY
Reply
#27
51158;82162 Wrote:From what I've been told, When a prospective employer call a previous employer about an applicant, the previous Employer can't say nothing more than yes santa claus worked here and his attendance record..

That isn't true. There's a variety of questions that can be asked and answered, and there are numerous ways an past employer can torpedo your future career.

One of those questions is: "Would you hire this person again?"
Reply
#28
streaker69;82169 Wrote:
51158;82162 Wrote:From what I've been told, When a prospective employer call a previous employer about an applicant, the previous Employer can't say nothing more than yes santa claus worked here and his attendance record..

That isn't true. There's a variety of questions that can be asked and answered, and there are numerous ways an past employer can torpedo your future career.

One of those questions is: "Would you hire this person again?"

"Would you hire this person again?"

That's true but there are reasons why the old employer would say no other than something bad.. personality problems and the like, We all have our idiosyncrasies, I have more than my share..
With the Second Amendment saying what it says, Why isn't the Federal Government Suing NY
Reply
#29
51158;82175 Wrote:
streaker69;82169 Wrote:That isn't true. There's a variety of questions that can be asked and answered, and there are numerous ways an past employer can torpedo your future career.

One of those questions is: "Would you hire this person again?"

"Would you hire this person again?"

That's true but there are reasons why the old employer would say no other than something bad.. personality problems and the like, We all have our idiosyncrasies, I have more than my share..

But when they're not allowed to say anything else, or if they say it in such a manner to make it sound worse than it is, it can have a detrimental effect upon the former employee.
Reply
#30
RugerGirl;82074 Wrote:I have no problem with background checks.... I don't want to work with sex offenders. I do have a huge problem with blacks getting off the hook because they're black. THAT angers me.

The whole section offender law is a crock of shit. I know someone who maxed out his sentence and was promised the world by the same people who locked him up. The piece of shit corrbet signs a law that requires him to check in every 90 days. I'd rather work with him than the trash that I do
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"

goofin, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Norway mass killer reportedly threatens hunger strike over prison 'torture' Philadelphia Patriot 7 1,536 02-15-2014, 07:47 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Gun Show Pulls Plug, Refuses To Obey Local Democrats Demand For Background Checks middlefinger 3 1,009 01-13-2014, 10:18 AM
Last Post: Camper
  English school threatens to label kids racist for YEARS unless they attend Islam trip Jon Doe 5 1,811 11-24-2013, 12:13 AM
Last Post: mingomom
  OBAMA THREATENS VETO OF RELIGIOUS PROTECTION FOR MILITARY middlefinger 1 631 06-13-2013, 06:51 AM
Last Post: Camper
  NJ2AS phone call to NJ state police over long gun approval NICS checks middlefinger 0 1,070 04-28-2013, 11:11 AM
Last Post: middlefinger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.