Legislation Postings Listed - 3
By Eddy McClain
July 28th, 2012
I'm mad because members of Congress do outrageous stuff that can only hurt our country, the employers who hire us, and our profession.
Yesterday, a Representative from Michigan introduced a bill, HR 6220, which says:
" . . . it shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer to make inquiries of an applicant for employment or otherwise seek information about such an applicant (including through the use of any form or application) relating to whether such applicant has ever been convicted of a criminal offense."
The two exceptions:
1. The employer must first extend a "conditional offer for employment"
2. If there is an "unreasonable risk to public safety."
SO: An employer may not ask if the applicant has a criminal record without first offering the job. What if you've got four promising applicants?
And the employer may not run a criminal background check unless the employer thinks the applicant is dangerous. Why would the employer want to even consider a hiring a dangerous person? Without running a background check, how would the employer know the applicant is dangerous?
That many security company operators and investigators are not outraged enough to support the National Council of Investigation and Security Services who represents their interests in Washington , D.C.
For months, NCISS has been fighting the EEOC Guidelines restricting criminal backgrounds and credit checks. Yet too few investigators and security pros seem to realize that NCISS is their best defense against adverse legislation which will greatly affect their ability to protect their clients. Having a professional lobbyist on duty to attempt to reason with legislators, costs money.
If you are reading this message, you may already be an NCISS member or State Association member, so I realize I may be preaching to the choir. But NCISS needs you to recruit others. We will be licked if we don't stick together. How about forwarding an NCISS application to a peer? http://www.NCISS.org
And in case you think I am blowing smoke about HR 6220, I am including the first three pages of the bill below. If this passes, you may not even ask a question about criminal convictions on your employment application!
2D SESSION H.R. 6220
To prohibit an employer from inquiring whether an applicant for employment
has been convicted of a criminal offense, except in certain circumstances.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on ________
To prohibit an employer from inquiring whether an applicant
for employment has been convicted of a criminal offense,
except in certain circumstances.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ''Ban the Box Act''.
5 SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES RELATED TO
6 CRIMINAL RECORD OF APPLICANTS.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsection
8 (b), it shall be an unlawful employment practice for any
1 employer to make inquiries of an applicant for employ
2 ment or otherwise seek information about such an appli
3 cant (including through the use of any form or applica
4 tion) relating to whether such applicant has ever been con
5 victed of a criminal offense.
6 (b) EXCEPTION.-Notwithstanding subsection (a), an
7 employer may make inquiries of an applicant or otherwise
8 seek information about the applicant relating to whether
9 such applicant has ever been convicted of a criminal of
11 (1) after a conditional offer for employment has
12 been extended to an applicant; or
13 (2) where the granting of employment may in
14 volve an unreasonable risk to the safety of specific
15 individuals or to the general public.
16 SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.
17 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
18 of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules-
19 (1) defining categories of employment where an
20 individual's past criminal history may involve an un
21 reasonable risk to the safety of specific individuals
22 or to the general public; and
23 (2) factors to be considered by employers in as
24 sessing whether an individual's past criminal history
25 poses such an unreasonable risk.
1 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.
2 (a) EMPLOYEES COVERED BY TITLE VII OF THE
3 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.-
4 (1) IN GENERAL.-The powers, procedures, and
5 remedies provided in sections 705, 706, 707, 709,
6 710, and 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
7 U.S.C. 2000e-4 et seq.) to the Commission, the At
8 torney General, or any person, alleging a violation of
9 title VII of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) shall
10 be the powers, procedures, and remedies this title
11 provides to the Commission, the Attorney General,
12 or any person, respectively, alleging an unlawful em
13 ployment practice in violation of this title against an
14 employee described in section 5(2)(A), except as pro
15 vided in paragraphs (2) and (3).
16 (2) COSTS AND FEES.-The powers, remedies,
17 and procedures provided in subsections (b) and (c)
18 of section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United
19 States (42 U.S.C. 1988), shall be the powers, rem-
20 edies, and procedures this title provides to the Com-
21 mission, the Attorney General, or any person, alleg-
22 ing such a practice.
23 (3) DAMAGES.-The powers, remedies, and pro-
24 cedures provided in section 1977A of the Revised
25 Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1981a), in
26 cluding the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3)