Once you served your time in prison, the government has no right to deny you a government level job based on your history. This is denying the right to have a job and is one step towards a police state.
ICantSpellDawg 20:22 09-01-2008
I agree. Keep people in prison forever.
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Once you served your time in prison, the government has no right to deny you a government level job based on your history. This is denying the right to have a job and is one step towards a police state.
Care to elaborate on this. Background checks go on in many sectors of the economy, not just for government jobs. Many companies will not hire a convicted felon.
m52nickerson 23:15 09-01-2008
It all depends on the job and on the crime the person committed.
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Once you served your time in prison, the government has no right to deny you a government level job based on your history. This is denying the right to have a job and is one step towards a police state.
there is no right to have a job.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
there is no right to have a job.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
if a business wants to do a background check on you, you can accept and get the job or deny and that business has the right to give the job to someone who will submit to the check. You and Tuff stuff kep taking unrelated things and trying to tie them back to the original issue.
Seamus Fermanagh 05:05 09-02-2008
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As Strike notes, there is no right to a job. The government should not prevent you from pursuing gainful employment -- but it has no mandated requirement to provide you with employment.
Moreover, thought the preamble of the Declaration does set the tone for our form of government, it is the U.S. Constitution that delimits that government. The Declaration is mostly a catalogue of complaints listed by the colonials as their justification for telling Lord North and George Hanover to bugger off.
You might make a useful argument that a felon, having served the entirety of their mandated sentence has paid their debt to society and that the simple fact of their felonious status should not -- in and of itself -- bar them from federal employment. However, to take the stance that any and all background checking addressing past criminality is inappropriate would be a poor argument.
Is it not reasonable to assume that being adjudged a perjurer might invalidate someone as a federal judge? Or might it seem reasonable to screen out convicted drug dealers from the DEA unless and until the DEA is itself convinced that the person in question is so changed as to represent a resource rather than a liability? Is it not reasonable to screen John Hinkley out of any chance at serving on the protective detail of the Secret Service?
I doubt a kindergarten would want a pedophile for an employee. :D
HoreTore 13:03 09-02-2008
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
As Strike notes, there is no right to a job.
Article 23.
(1)
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
CountArach 13:09 09-02-2008
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Bah! Liberal clap-trap!
Hosakawa Tito 15:56 09-02-2008
They can always go into politics...they'd fit right in.
Crazed Rabbit 19:53 09-02-2008
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
We don't care for your foreign laws here!
CR
Seamus Fermanagh 01:27 09-03-2008
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
This is from the UN Resolution regarding a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The USA prevents no one from seeking employment, does not force employment choices upon its citizens, has a number of laws designed to ensure just and favorable conditions, and does offer some protection against unemployment.
This "right" is not a direct part of our constitution, however. Moreover, the right to work is just that, a right, not a guarantee.
CountArach 09:51 09-03-2008
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
This is from the UN Resolution regarding a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The USA prevents no one from seeking employment, does not force employment choices upon its citizens, has a number of laws designed to ensure just and favorable conditions, and does offer some protection against unemployment.
This "right" is not a direct part of our constitution, however. Moreover, the right to work is just that, a right, not a guarantee.
You are, however, a signatory of the Declaration, thus your government has accepted it as having a standing.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO