- Bureaucratic stonewall no block for new Richmond icon
- '59 Penfolds Grange reviewed
- Man fronts court over fatal stabbing
- 'I hope you get smashed by the karma bus'
- Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM Abbott and Liberal friends on-side
- AC/DC's Malcolm Young 'seriously unwell'
- Melbourne treated to pink lunar eclipse
- Kindergarten pets mutilated
- RSS Syndicate this blog (XML)
What we're talking about
- Greg on Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM ... About time some Politician has been caught out at a Royal Commission or Inquiry,all they ever say is I don't remember or ... more
- Lukew on Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM ... So you can waste billions of dollars of tax payers money mis-managing just about everything - federal and state - and be ... more
- Gazza on Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM ... Standard liberal behaviour more
- boofa on Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM ... PIGS, TROUGH , SNOUT.Lets cover this one up Tony. more
- Sir Matt of the 1950's on Barry O'Farrell quits, but keeps PM ... Lucky Mitchell & little Tommy Elliott are on holidays(again, more holidays than teachers & construction workers they harp on ... more
- Lisa on Commonwealth Bank customers can't ... Australia Post can't take ANY credit cards, because their Eftpos is with Commonwealth. So... People trying to lodge mail ... more
- Milton on Surprise, surprise: Petrol price pain ... It hit $1.71 cents per Litre yesterday in Sydney. So wait for it. more
- Gazza on New way to snap naughty drivers Robert hills comment say it all"we know motorists are quick to put their phone down and put their seatbelt on when they see ... more
- Milton on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... Are you blocking all comments about Clive or just the positive ones? more
- Dame Mylene on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... Clive Palmer's now the unofficial Prime Minister of Australia. Fun times ahead, Mr Abbott. more
- Milton on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... Neil: At least Clive knows how to build businesses and not tear them down. more
- Hooksy from the Country on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... Buffoon - pot, kettle, black ...... more
- Mark on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... It would be worse if there were 4 more green loonies. more
- Garry on Senate circus 'not healthy for ... Both the Labour and Liberal parties seem hell bent on making themselves unappealing many voters are looking for an ... more
- Dame Mylene on 'One of the biggest law and order ... The only way they'll have a Royal Commission is if they can blame Labor. Otherwise it's not going to happen :p more
- Kristy on Youths charged over Newport crime spree Bloody thugs, blame the pathetic laws for this one too as they know nothing will happen not even a slap on the wrist!! more
- Matt on Youths charged over Newport crime spree So glad I live in Singapore where these criminals would be caught, publicly shamed, caned & jailed. In Melbourne they wont ... more
- Sinbad on 'They've got to do something' Of course, it's also Napthine's fault that he got his head kicked in in the first place ! Now you've got to ask yourself why ... more
- Kevin on 'They've got to do something' Napthine government = fail more
- Ken of Euroa on 'They've got to do something' If he had a fractured neck he wouldn't be standing up more
Are criminal records relevant to potential employers?
TOM ELLIOTT: Over the past few weeks we’ve spoken a fair bit about the new anti-discrimination bill being put together by former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.
It may surprise you to learn that even though Ms Roxon has now resigned, the bill itself will live on under the stewardship of new A-G, Mark Dreyfus.
Today I learnt that the body charged with drafting the bill, the Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, wants to make it illegal for employers to consider people’s criminal records when deciding whether or not to hire them.
According to Chairman Trish Crossin – yes, the same person recently dumped by the PM in favour of Nova Perris – “discrimination in employment on the basis of a criminal record that is clearly irrelevant should not be tolerated”
Frankly, I find this astonishing. How is a Senate Committee supposed to decide whether or not a criminal record is relevant to a particular job offer?
If I were looking to hire someone in any role, I’d want to know that they were honest and could be trusted. And evidence of a criminal record is a pretty handy way of working this out in advance.
Consider also that for most jobs on offer these days, there are often multiple applications.
Surely if out of ten candidates for one job, 5 have a criminal record and 5 don’t, one way of reducing the list size is to cull those who’ve done time inside?!
Employers need the freedom to hire those best suited to the job.
To do this they try and learn as much as possible in advance about various applicants.
A criminal record is a completely legitimate piece of information for any employer to know about before taking someone on.
Take a new way home with Tom Elliott on 3AW Drive at 3-6pm weekdays. In an all-new, three-hour Drive Program, Tom Elliott will tackle all the issues affecting Melbourne, bringing you the latest news, information, opinion and talk back.
I have a criminal record (one offence where I hit a sexual predator resulting in 3 stitches to his face), I have not been able to obtain any employment since this. I have given up finding any work, I was fully employed before this, never unemployed. I have paid over and over again for this and society never forgives.michelle Wednesday 27 February, 2013 - 4:36 PM
Yes an employee should have all the information available if they are doing their job well. They should also behave reasonable and removing 5 people based on having a criminal record isn't doing their job well. It is taking an easy way out. It may be irrelevant as per Dave's example, and may mean they are missing out on who actually really is the most suitable person for the job in the current time.Melanie Monday 25 February, 2013 - 1:21 PM
Dave, I agree with you.
It might be illegal to discriminate based on the record but how does one prove that he/she was discriminated against when all you get (if you are lucky to get a reply0 is "Sorry but you were not successful). It does not tell you why and you have no way of finding out why. So how can the person applying for a job know that there was any discrimination involved?
If we want people to rehibilitate, then we must allow them the opportunity. If people can't get jobs then they will simply have to go back to crime. What else is there for them? Unemployment benefits for years and years?Peggy Sunday 24 February, 2013 - 3:11 PM
The prospective employee should also have access to information about employers. I'm not going to work for a crook. There are a lot of dodgy businessmen out there with little scams and rorts. the Employees don't find out until the business folds and they arrive at work to find the boss has done a runner and the front doors are all chained up.max Saturday 23 February, 2013 - 1:47 PM
The prospective employee should also have access to information about employers. I'm not going to work for a crook. There are a lot of dodgy businessmen out there with little scams and rorts. the Employees don't find out until the business folds and they arrive at work to find the boss has done a runner and the front doors are all chained up.max Saturday 23 February, 2013 - 1:44 PM
Does that mean his freemason membership Ian.
Is that secret too.
I WOULD DISCRIMINATE QUITE OPENLY AGAINST THEM,AND NOT SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD, BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER TRUST THEM.WHEN THE FREEMASON IS NOT ABLE TO PLAN HIS OWN DESTINY DUE TO ORDERS FROM THE HIERARCHY,THEN THOSE MEMBERS ARE FOOLS. BECAUSE THEY DO INTERFERE UNDRHANDLY WITH JOB EMPLOYMENT,MAIL SORTING/POSTING/RECEIPT OF LETTERS AND INVARIABLY ARE
POLICE BUDDIES.IT WOULD BE WORTH IT, JUST TO DSPLAY THE SAME CONTEMPT, THEY SHOW AGAINST CATHOLICS.all the "nescessary" info Saturday 23 February, 2013 - 11:13 AM