If all this sounds far afield from where we started- here’s the punchline: it is forbidden for employers in Austin to ask job applicants if they have a criminal past – yet Uber and Lyft drivers, through fingerprinting, are required to prove that they do not have a criminal past. We suppose each policy makes sense on its own – but do both of them together?
By John Shaffer Absurdity seems to be one of the main components of modern progressive government, and it's not only the federal government. There are plenty of America’s cities whose policies are as mind-boggling as anything that comes out of Washington DC. Let’s take New York City, where there is a movement to forbid bar owners from refusing to serve alcohol to pregnant women. Yes, you read that right. The “Human Rights Commission” of the city of New York [and let’s note that the iron law of self-identified nomenclature demonstrates that boards whose names include the words “Human Rights” are far more likely to quash someone’s rights than to defend them, and almost certainly will turn a blind eye to major violations while sparing no effort to put the screws to insignificant offenses] has issued “guidelines” [in other words, do it or else] that state that pregnant women cannot be denied alcoholic beverages merely because they are pregnant. There is more than one reason this guideline is mis-guided. In the first place, a bar owner can be ultimately responsible in the eyes of the law for consequences of his service. So if he serves a pregnant woman, and the baby suffers in some way – or is claimed to have suffered – he probably will be sued by one of those lawyers at the end of the bar. Yes, the Human Rights guidelines would prefer that he sell the woman alcohol, regardless of his personal misgivings. Those lawyers will have a field day with that. And what about the label that is likely to be on any container of alcohol sold in America, you know, the one about pregnant women avoiding alcohol because it can lead to fetal damage? So on one hand, “big government” warns pregnant women not to use the stuff, but another arm of “big government” threatens the bar owner if he doesn’t sell her the stuff. As indicated a few sentences ago – the lawyers will love this policy. But as ludicrous as that sounds, it is a marvel of sanity compared to recent actions in Austin, Texas, another bastion of progressive government (perhaps the only one in Texas). A few months ago, the city council passed an ordinance that requires fingerprinting drivers for Uber and Lyft, which essentially are private riding-sharing companies that are less expensive and more versatile than the traditional taxi services. Now this could legitimately be seen as a way to protect public safety, and it could also be seen as a way to put an obstacle in the path of a business that is largely outside the government’s control. There probably is truth in both perspectives. Anyway, right or wrong, Uber and Lyft have been ignoring the ordinance, and mounted a $9 million campaign in the recent municipal election to overturn the ordinance. The voters upheld the ordinance, 56% to 44%, and Uber and Lyft have said they would pull out of the city rather than comply. Now this would be sort of a ho-hum story of the people acting at the ballot box to protect their safety, except – just a few weeks earlier, the city of Austin (perhaps inspired by President Obama’s orders to “drop the box” about criminal background on employment applications) did that very thing. Seven states forbid employers from asking if a job applicant ever was convicted of a crime. The Austin city government mandated, starting in May, that businesses with more than 15 employees must make a conditional job offer before rejecting an applicant based on criminal history. Failure to comply means a fine of $500. Now this doesn’t mean one has to hire a convicted felon – it only means one can’t automatically exclude him for that reason. One may ask about criminal pasts – it’s just that one can’t do it “early” in the process, but must wait until later. (Another field day for lawyers, we’re sure). Of course, the President says this will make it easier for a felon to re-enter the work force. Actually, the President didn’t exactly say that, because the Justice Department doesn’t like to use the term “felon” or “convict.” It prefers – get this – “person who has committed a crime” or “individual who was incarcerated.” Try fitting those in a headline. Attorney General Loretta Lynch prefers the term “justice-involved youth,” which says a whole lot more about Ms. Lynch than about any justice-involved youth. It brings to mind the Obama administration’s stubborn refusal to use terms such as “terrorist” or “radical jihadi.”
If all this sounds far afield from where we started- here’s the punchline: it is forbidden for employers in Austin to ask job applicants if they have a criminal past – yet Uber and Lyft drivers, through fingerprinting, are required to prove that they do not have a criminal past. We suppose each policy makes sense on its own – but do both of them together? Comments are closed.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|