EEOC -- Attacks The Salvation Army
By Paul M. Weyrich
April 25, 2007
Page 2 of 2
One of the latest EEOC "campaigns" is to end background checks by many employers because they might discriminate against people who have served prison terms. Now sometimes people do deserve a second chance when they have paid their debt to society but shouldn't the employer get to decide whether to hire someone with a criminal record? Imagine a future time when an employer could be fined for not hiring someone with a criminal record. I have no trouble believing that this is what the EEOC would like to see happen.
In the Boston case I wanted to know if the Hispanic employees were American citizens. Nobody could tell me. They most likely are not, but that does not matter to the EEOC, which probably did not bother to inquire. You need not be an American citizen to use a federal agency to file a lawsuit on your behalf. In what other country is there an agency that would help you sue yet another government agency or a private company if you weren't a citizen? And provide you with an interpreter to do so? Not one that I can think of.
This case would be entirely moot if we had an "English First" rule in our schools and required everyone to learn English for employment. I have given up on the idea that such common sense will again prevail in our society. Must our government work against us? Must it take American taxpayers' money to hire lawyers who sue on behalf of non-citizens who cannot be bothered to learn the language even "to the best of their ability?" And to sue one of our preeminent charitable organizations in the process? Apparently it can -- and it does.
---------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. >> Back -- Page 1 2
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  4.9 out of 5.0 (52 total votes)
| 
