President Obama is taking a step today that the three remaining Democrat candidates for president have all heartily endorsed: Obama is banning companies with contracts with the federal government from asking job applicants about their criminal records during the initial application phase. Supposedly, this is going to give those with criminal records the chance to show that they have the qualifications necessary for the job rather than being summarily rejected. It's one of those policies that liberals dream up to feel like they have done something to help people but which have no effect other than to push more costs onto businesses. I think that there must be some liberal equivalent to the oath that doctors take; rather than "first do no harm" which the doctors say, the libs start with "first hurt the economy".
Think about this policy. Companies that ask about criminal records do so because they don't want to hire people who have shown themselves in the past to be felons. Obviously, anyone who needs a security clearance cannot get one if they have a criminal past. Beyond that, however, why would any employer want to hire someone who was convicted of stealing from a previous employer? Having the employment application indicate who has such a criminal record allows the employer to reject the applicant without having to spend the time and cost of interviews and background checks. With Obama's new regulations, that expense will now be required before the employer can find out that the applicant is a felon. The outcome won't change, but the cost will.
I understand that Obama and the Democrats want to pander to the people with records and their families. Unless Obama mandates that contractors cannot consider prior convictions at any point in the process (a move that even Obama has not considered), the outcome won't change.
Think about this policy. Companies that ask about criminal records do so because they don't want to hire people who have shown themselves in the past to be felons. Obviously, anyone who needs a security clearance cannot get one if they have a criminal past. Beyond that, however, why would any employer want to hire someone who was convicted of stealing from a previous employer? Having the employment application indicate who has such a criminal record allows the employer to reject the applicant without having to spend the time and cost of interviews and background checks. With Obama's new regulations, that expense will now be required before the employer can find out that the applicant is a felon. The outcome won't change, but the cost will.
I understand that Obama and the Democrats want to pander to the people with records and their families. Unless Obama mandates that contractors cannot consider prior convictions at any point in the process (a move that even Obama has not considered), the outcome won't change.
No comments:
Post a Comment