Seattle City Council Votes to Force Businesses to Hire Criminals


hamburglar-blog

I bet Seattle jewelers are going to start seeing some interesting job applications soon.

The Seattle City Council [Monday] unanimously approved a bill that would prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history until after an initial screening. Employers could reject an applicant because of a criminal record, but only if there is a legitimate business reason to do so.

The measure was strongly opposed by some business groups, including the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which said they didn’t want the city second-guessing their hiring decisions. They also opposed a provision that will allow the city Office of Human Rights to investigate complaints by job applicants who believe they were turned down solely because of their criminal history.

Since the only real defense against a charge of discriminatory hiring is evidence of existing diversity, Seattle companies will have to show that their workplaces are already diverse and consist of a proportional amount of criminals and non-criminals. That will mean a hiring boom for certain classes of “safe” criminals.

Suddenly having a criminal record is something that will make an otherwise undistinguished resume shine.

Hope, change and affirmative action for criminals.

  • Gee

    The standards for hiring standards are a state level ruling. City councils do not have the authority to impose any such standards

    • DogmaelJones1

      Well, the Seattle City Council thinks otherwise. More to the point, the state shouldn’t be in the “hiring standards” racket, either. Nor should the federal government. You may as well start regulating who should be your friends, whom you should marry, whom you should have a beer with, and whether or not strangers have a right to enter your home.

    • OfficialPro

      someone better take this all the way to the Supreme Court, and do it before Antonin Scalia retires.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Why would a State have any such legitimate authority? The fact that you think any level of government should be authorized to interfere with private employment decisions is a measure of how far we’ve fallen.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Yeah, maybe we should bring back child labor. Black-lung and stunted growth are underrated.

        • Erik Nervik

          and most of that was ended by the workers banding together and forming unions before the government ever made laws…

          although republicans hate the unions too so go figure…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “although republicans hate the unions too so go figure..”

            Conservatives don’t hate the idea of unions or collective bargaining. They hate communists who took over most of the organized labor movements. There’s nothing wrong with organizing at all. Do it intelligently and in accordance with American justice – before it was corrupted by communists.

          • Erik Nervik

            I’ve been a member of labor unions, last I checked identifying with the communist party was not a requirement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve been a member of labor unions, last I checked identifying with the communist party was not a requirement.”

            So you want to believe you’ve refuted what I said? Ever hear of a dupe?

            There are plenty of members that hate communism. They have no power at all. And some members that hate communism still fall in to the communist trap anyway.

            I’m pro-labor when it doesn’t turn the workers in to parasites.

          • OfficialPro

            who ever said it was? It’s the leadership that’s infested with commies, not usually the rank-and-file (though some do exist there).

  • Boots

    Seattle now becomes a place no tourist with a measurable IQ would visit. Identity theft would be my first concern followed by credit/debit card fraud. Maybe I should start looking at the source of internet purchase to see if the business is located in Seattle. It’s hard enough to prevent these crimes without giving criminally predisposed access to customers’ info. This must be part of the Democrat’s plan to redistribute wealth?

    • Erik Nervik

      how do you know it’s not a criminal already handling your credit card online? you’re saying you trust people you can’t even vet yourself to handle your credit card on a city by city basis?

      once you submit your credit card information the merchant has it forever. you ever hand your credit card to a waiter at a nice restuarant? why are you concerned over watching someone run your card and give you a receipt, versus simply posting your card information on the internet?

      your idea makes 0% sense. if you’re worried about CC fraud you need to pay your online bills with western union money orders instead of credit cards

      • Boots

        Actually it’s simple risk management. If you’re increasing the hiring pool to include felons you’re increasing the odds of theft. I never send my credit card with a waiter or waitress because I know there are waiters and waitresses who carry scanners, download at the end of their shift and sell the numbers on the undernet. I never let my credit or debit cards out of my sight and pay attention to the terminals/scanners. And you’re right about not knowing whether the people I’m dealing with are already felons. That’s why I keep track of my cards. You don’t have to pay attention to your stuff. That’s OK with me. I just prefer to not increase my risk. I’m a realist and know you can’t stop all fraud. I know of two cases where Social Security Administration employees were convicted of selling numbers. The creative thieves will get what they want. Why make it easier… which is what the Seattle City Council wants to do?

        • Erik Nervik

          becuase your measures are a false sense of security. people put skimmers in the gas pump slots for credit cards too….

          I doubt a former criminal (remember these are people who’ve served their debt to society) would try stealing credit cards at their place of employment, it’s too easy to get caught doing that. your information is much more likely to be stolen by someone setting up unauthorized skimmers on an ATM or gas pump machine, or to be compromised by financial department employees at the retailers you shop at.

          I make my life easier, I pay with cash….. for everything with cash. I have zero chance of having my money stolen by credit card theives that way. boycotting seattle based businesses will do NOTHING to increase your safety, in fact it’s a very poor form of risk management. I pay cash and when I buy online it’s only from retailers who will take payment in a western union money order or postal money order. never by credit card. if you want risk management then dumping the card is the best single thing you can do.

          • Boots

            I agree with a lot of what you have to say but you raise issues that further my resolve in not doing online business in Seattle. I won’t get in to recidivism rates with you but paying their debt to society doesn’t cure them all. Would they engage in criminal activity at work? Heck yeah. Companies lose more to internal theft than they do to shoplifting. Otherwise the loss prevention industry would be a lot smaller and our prices from retailers would be a lot lower. We pay a lot of markup for “shrinkage”. That brings up another observation… that if companies are forced to hire felons, and acknowledging recidivism exists, then employers are putting their business in a higher risk environment for internal theft. A common internal theft method is for the cashier to only partially scan merchandise going out the door when friends shop. They only ring up stuff they plan on returning and keep items they really want that weren’t scanned. Either their prices are going up or they’re going out of business. Skimmers at gas pumps and even ATMs are common but if you pay attention you minimize the risk. In theory dumping the card should be 100% foolproof but I know an elderly lady who had a niece open 12 credit cards in her name, maxed them all out, and it took the elderly lady almost six months to fix the problem. She didn’t want to press charges but had to as part of the fix. Elder fiduciary abuse is pretty common… more so by family than strangers ripping off the elderly. Just saying… the bad guys are after our stuff and the cost of convenience is the added risk. Why improve the criminals’ odds?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I never send my credit card with a waiter or waitress because I know there are waiters and waitresses who carry scanners, download at the end of their shift and sell the numbers on the undernet. I never let my credit or debit cards out of my sight and pay attention to the terminals/scanners. And you’re right about not knowing whether the people I’m dealing with are already felons. That’s why I keep track of my cards.”

          You need to read your cardholder agreements and terms more carefully.

          • Boots

            I fully understand the universal agreement which limits liability in the case of theft or fraud. That doesn’t change how various companies apply the agreements because many, not I’m not saying all or even most, companies place the burden of proof on the customer that they were a victim. The time it takes to fix the problem can be enormous at worst and a nuisance at best. That has nothing to do with my overall premise of… why willingly put your info at risk and make it so you have to fix a problem? The Seattle law, if passed, brings people who have already shown a criminal disposition closer to another revenue source… business customers = potential victims.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I fully understand the universal agreement which limits liability in the case of theft or fraud. That doesn’t change how various companies apply the agreements because many, not I’m not saying all or even most, companies place the burden of proof on the customer that they were a victim.”

            It can be confusing, but perhaps you’re appealing to the wrong people when you have a problem.

            I’m not saying you shouldn’t be careful. Just saying the banks have more to lose than the cardholders do. You pay for fraud alright, but more often in higher fees rather than directly.

            Also note that credit purchases usually have more protections than electronic transfers. But it is largely standardized and legally the merchant is required to take specific steps to identify the purchaser.

            Actually most of your problems would be solved by setting up rules with the issuing bank, for example disallowing transactions without the seller recording your picture ID. And shipping only to X address, etc. Or no shipping at all.

            The banks may not be your best friend but they’re not your enemy either. You have more choices than you realize.

          • Boots

            We mostly agree. I don’t see the card companies or banks as the enemy because, they, like me, have to make a living. But our (wife and I) risk avoidance is mostly driven by the fact that most people will be victims of something at some point. We keep two business accounts for no reason other than we have operating funds in case one account is frozen for any reason. Our vendors will be patient but we will always make sure our employees are paid. Enjoy your weekend.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “This must be part of the Democrat’s plan to redistribute wealth?”

      Pandering for votes and destroying businesses. Wealth redistribution isn’t really about wealth redistribution at all.

      If they were ever able to destroy capitalism and achieve dominant hegemony, they’d kill the criminals faster than you can sneeze.

      • Boots

        I should’ve put a sarcasm alert in front of “This must be part of the Democrat’s plan to redistribute wealth?” Conservatives wouldn’t come up with the idea to make it easier for convicts to get your money.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “I should’ve put a sarcasm alert in front of “This must be part of the Democrat’s plan to redistribute wealth?” Conservatives wouldn’t come up with the idea to make it easier for convicts to get your money.”

          I understood. I just wanted to add that “social justice’ is a means for them, not an end. It’s a means to attack the middle class, not to enrich the poor.

          I rescued a very young cat a few weeks ago. Black with pure white paws and a little white on the jaw. The locals asked me what a good (or common) American name would be and I told them that most kids would call him “Boots,” so they did. Do.

  • OfficialPro

    This just proves that Seattle is full of inbred hippies.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “This just proves that Seattle is full of inbred hippies.”

      Hippy inbreeding is a root cause for most of today’s leftists.

  • MacDaddy12345

    And the first company that suffered losses from that law should sue the pants of the City of Seattle and each one of the city councillors personally for the loss. Once they pay out 10 or 20 times the law will be rescinded.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Everything imaginable is illegal in this f^cked up country. We are ALL criminals a million times over. Careful! Don’t yell back at at your ex-wife, visit your sons or do your time to pay for your “crime.” You might have trouble getting a job outside of Seattle.