You hear the following reports from staff members during a staff meeting: We\'ve

Question

You hear the following reports from staff members during a staff meeting:

We've lined up some interns from a local college to take the place of vacationing staff members. We won’t pay them, but hopefully, they will make a real contribution.

When hiring, our background checks will reveal which job candidates have an arrest or conviction; they will be dropped from consideration.

An employee has been deployed to Afghanistan twice and has missed more than two years of work. She is returning and wants her job back, but her skills are out of date, and she might be deployed again. We won’t take her back.

Because health insurance is so expensive, we’re requiring all of our applicants to complete lengthy medical histories, including whether certain diseases run in their families.

The question is: What legal issues emerged during this staff meeting? What should this company be doing differently to better comply with the law?

Explanation / Answer

The unpaid work done by the interns engaged in the place of vacationing staff is illegal under the laws of the state which states that they must be paid at least the federal legal wages.

The issues revealed through pre employment checks related to arrests / conviction do not always mean that the applicant will be unsuitable or dangerous if employed. For an example a person arrested as a juvenile for a minor offence is unlikley to pose danger to anyone at a manufacturing facility where he has applied twenty years later, whereas someone with a history of financial fraud can't be considered for the post of a bank cashier. Thus, the organisation must be in condition to establish that the decision of exclusion from candidature of such candidate was in the inetrest of the organisation and the people concerned with it,as the nature of offence committed by him /her could have influenced his /her conduct at the job.

Rejecting on the basis of discontinuity of job is also against the equal opportunity act because the said reason for disqualification does not affect the candidate's ability to do the job.

The in depth enquiry about the family history of diseases is also against the laws. I becomes even more severe when it is done with intention of excluding the candidates and denying the insurance to them who don't have any such history.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Y
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.