Ben10 stated...

"Consumer comment #10

Ronny g "Since most ids do not state your race on any health issues..."

Stop right there right now. Im not even explaining that, being so obvious. Do not post for the sake of contradicting, follow the rules of posting."

How did I violate any rules of posting? You are accusing this place of violating EEOC regulations and in your report YOU state " ..Car Wash Express is guilty of a practice which could subject people to employment discrimination based on race, color,age,national origin, disability, etc. They cannot legally ask for your id as a condition of a person receiving or the employer accepting an application..."

So who is really in contradiction here? Now unless you feel you were discriminated against based on your DOB, your name, or the address on your license..what else does a license conclude that an employer could use to discriminate with? I would logically assume that your sex, color of skin, any obvious disabilities, and approx age would be obvious to the person asking to see the ID as you are handing it to them? Am I wrong?

First for Ben,

I have an extensive background in labor relations and labor laws and I can tell you one thing for sure. Pissing and moaning here will not correct the problem. Filing a complaint with the EEOC will go nowhere in your case. This is because the burden of proof is on you to prove that your "rights" were violated, AND, then you MUST be able to show what damages you suffered before you will get a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC.

Common sense would dictate that a car wash would require you to have a valid drivers license to work there. Asking for it at the time of application could be seen as a legitimate business need to weed out unqualified applicants, and to possibly order driving records and background checks before offering you an interview. This is all totally legal and makes no difference if you like it or not.

Now the issue of you owning your own car. Another legitimate business need may be to have you work between multiple locations. Again, no problem with this request. Nothing illegal.

I have an idea! Start your own business. Then you can argue with yourself!

Asking for proof of identity is perfectly legal at time of application. Actually, an I-9 should be provided along with the application. Under the new homeland security rules, this would never see a courtroom. Guaranteed. Employers have had alot more responsibility dumped on them in the name of national security.

Why would any employer want to give someone an application, take the time to review it and set up an interview, just to find out the applicant does not have a DL, or does not have the right to work in the U.S. etc? Not me. I would get all of that stuff up front. If you don't like it, file the EEOC complaint. Then spend up to 2 years to get that complaint through the system, and then take it to court [at your own expense], and tell me how it works out for you.

Been there, done that. VERY costly.

 

Now for Charles,

First of all, nobody owes you a job. It is not your "right" to have a job. Employers in most states can hire and fire "at will". That is the law. If you don't like the law, work towards changing it.

As I recall, you have serious mental health issues and are on disability and live with your Mom. I don't think I would hire you either.

 

This Is a growing problem employers are wrongfully firing people.  Who already had jobs just because they didn't like them this Is agaisnt federal law.  The EEOC does nothing to protect the victims If they are "WHITE".

The employers In Alabama are always doing some type of injustice to people.  And they are getting away with It.  They are always trying to get away with what Is wrong,  then besides doing the right thing.  Just to ruin peoples lives.

That Is one major thing that Is wrong with the economy & why unemployment,  Is 10%.  Because they are mistreating employees & wrongfully terminating them when they haven't done anything wrong.

They should be able to sue & get lots of money for the damages they have suffered.

Response to consumer comment #11

It is clear to me that your responses indicate one of two things, or perhaps both these things. Either you are not being sincere about the topic, your are at the bottom 20% of the population intellectually, or both. Allow me to make this evident if it is not, the sincere logical readers have already caught on.

"Because obviously you have it set in stone that they are getting the id for the sole purpose to discriminate against you."

I have not indicated this anywhere in my report or my rebuttals.

Ripoff report

"Car Wash is guilty of a practice which could subject people to discrimination based on race, color, age, national origin, disability, etc...They cannot legally ask you for your id as a condition of a person receiving or the employer accepting an application. Not only do managers have the opportunity to discriminate, employees can do it as well."

"Also, if Car Wash Express wont hire or interview someone if they do not have a vehicle, personal or otherwise, they must make this clear on the application"

These two quotes summed up my position. Stop distorting what i claim.

Your next statement is about methods of separating a person's name from any identifying characteristics such as race color, national origin, etc.

"Just about every professional job has you send in a resume and i can guarantee you 99% of the companies do not separate or block out the name when they are looking at them.

Dude, are you serious? There is hardly a company who demands that you specify your race and color national origin, disability status and other identifying characteristics in a resume!!! You know... well i hope you understand that. Youre not using simple sense.

You are not making useful contributions to the conversation....

Finally in this comment you quote something of mine. My sentence you took from:

The name of the person(legally it is your right to use another name on your application than your true name, another right you deny when you advocate what you do. Why is this important?.....

Your comment:- Since you are the EEOC expert please provide us this law.Oh, and I think we are still waiting on the law that says if they dont hire you because of a car that it is discrimination.

I didnt claim that anywhere in my report or my rebuttals. You have concentrated on this secondary stream of info so much because you have no defense for your denial of equal opportunity practices.

I invite you to read the rules of posting. You are not following them.

Consumer comment #10

Ronny g "Since most ids do not state your race on any health issues..."

Stop right there right now. Im not even explaining that, being so obvious. Do not post for the sake of contradicting, follow the rules of posting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do not employ anyone. I do it all myself. I deal in the restoration, customization and reselling of electric guitars, and the restoration, customization and re-selling of classic cars.

My experience in the hiring practices of business comes from my experience of working for corporations, and small mom and pops.

If I was to hire anyone, not only would I not ask for ID, but I would probably go down to the home depot and hire some Mexicans who would do a great job and not ask for a lot. It would only be for menial work, I do not need any accountants or office workers.

I totally believe in equal opportunity employment. I believe the person most qualified for a job should be considered, and all else being equal..the deciding factor should only be qualifications and previous work/education history.

I would not ask for any ID unless the Gub'ment required me to do so. However, if i did have a business where an employee was going to operate any of my customers motor vehicles...you can bet your life regardless of any laws or regulations..I would ask if the applicant has a valid drivers license before going through any interview process.

As far as owning a vehicle, I do not see why this car wash job requires it, but at the same time I do not feel it is right for anyone to force this place to defend their reasons for requiring this. It is their business at risk..not yours.

My " continually mention" of homeland security has nothing to do with justifying any of "my" beliefs. I only know employers were notified they must see several forms of valid ID to be in compliance..or the employer can be in trouble. So I am not saying it is right or even within the regulations that this particular car wash is requiring to see ID before hired, I am only stating that this may be the reason they are asking to see it, and it would certainly provide justification if questioned in a court of law. As I stated in my last post...the employer may not understand they are violating any regulations...but only logically assuming it wil save time and effort to be aware if the applicant has a valid ID before hiring..rather then go through the process only to find out the applicant does not have a valid ID..and then it was all a waste...can you comprehend the reasoning? Or...are you beyond reasoning and just have it out for this car wash?

You can paste all the regulations you want..and post all the opinions and interpretations you want...but if it truly is illegal for any prospective employer to request ID before handing over an application, or if it is violating the law to request the applicant own a car...go through the proper channels and file a suit. We will be here when you get back to post the results.

If I am wrong, then I will accept this as a lesson learned. I will not lose any sleep over it either way...other then if this place of business was convicted of discrimination and not one shred of evidence to prove they are discriminating was presented.

Ronny g, the cat has now come out of the bag. I understand your profession now. So you have your own business.

 You are an employer who regularly asks for identification before giving a potential employee an interview?

Or in the least, you are a business owner who desires the license to do this for his personal convenience whenever he gets the urge. Do you believe in Equal  Employment Opportunity? Tell me, is your company automobile related?

You continually mention the Department of Homeland Security as justification for your beliefs, but the only thing you quoted that you say comes from the Department of Homeland Security is an I-9 explanation that mentions what employers can inspect from employees, not applicants.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is not a union. It's a federal agency. It is a federal government equal employment law enforcement commission. It enforces federal laws already in place. It is not simply a civilian body which observes, mediates and recommends. It is not akin to a body such as the ACLU.

The law regarding identification has not changed, and in order for this to happen, Congress must pass a law authorizing this. It of course has not. Asking for id beforehand is still illegal.

You are trying to argue with a law of the government. This had already been decided many years ago.

All federal agencies and departments must comply with EEOC regulation/prohibitions, including the Department of Homeland Security.

Even the Real ID act, which does not mention this issue, put forth by the Department of Homeland Security, has been opposed by 25 states who have passed regulations against the act in their state for its tenth amendment violations. Any declaration by the Department must comply with the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and federal law.

What does the Department say on its website about employment issues. It has four categories.

Employment Issues 9

E-Verify. An online system operated jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration (SSA) where employers can check the work status of new hires online by comparing information from an employee's I-9 form against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases.

Social Security No-Match: Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter.  Amends the regulations relating to the unlawful hiring or continued employment of unauthorized aliens. The amended regulation describes the legal obligations of an employer, under current immigration law, when the employer receives a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security. A

Optional Practical Training Interim Final Rule. An interim final rule extending the period of Optional Practical Training (OPT) from 12 to 29 months for qualified F-1 non-immigrant students with a degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics who are employed by businesses enrolled in the E-Verify program.

H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program Proposed Changes. The proposed changes to the rule reduce current limitations and certain delays faced by U.S.employers and relax current limitations on employers ability to petition for multiple, unnamed agricultural workers.

 

This is actually a serious issue as jobs are very difficult to come by these days..the unemployment rate is record highs due to the economic crisis/recession.

I had moved out here to Los Angeles a couple of years ago at the worst possible time. This state was hit hard...and Los Angeles has almost zero jobs.

I have my own business, but it just makes ends meet..I needed a job as well. I though I would easily be able to transfer since the company I worked for back east is national. But I had to wait 6 months for an opening.

LA is not exactly Hinesville GA. It is much more like Mexico or another country and it is...I was going to say poorly run, but it actually seems like it is not run at all. What laws they do have are complete nonsense..at least compared to the 5 other states I have lived in.

Now, I walked around my neighborhood locally for anything part time..coffee shop, car wash..I would have done anything. I am a straight white male.

I noticed the coffee shops were mostly gay. All other jobs were 100% Mexican work force. I got a few applications but never a call..usually I just got the old "we are not hiring now".

I looked at the local employment publication on every corner (or as I have come to call it the thinnest publication on earth). The whole publication is advertisements for schools..and there were only two actual job listings...both state and both for the LAPD.

In one ad it stated you must be transsexual. In another job listing it stated you must be Mexican. These were STATE government jobs for the LA Police dept. I think those are quite a bit more discriminatory then a job where you may drive customers cars to ask to see valid ID.

Fortunately I have a good job now with my company and just got promoted..and my home side businesses are doing better. But times have changed. There used to be a shortage of workers, now there is a shortage of jobs so they are  making it tougher to even apply.

If a job asks for ID I would just show it. If they require I have a vehicle, I need a vehicle or why even apply?

I am aware that there could be cause to believe this car wash is not exactly following the rules to the letter regarding it's hiring practices...I can grant that.

But..lets look at what is most likely..

They want to see ID before they issue an application, and they require you to have a car.

Now, assume this ended up in a hearing..it would need to be proven this company is discriminating and violating EEO.

Judge: Why are you asking your applicants for ID?

Defendant: We need to make sure that all our applicants have a valid ID since the job requires they may operate customers vehicles. As well, we know once employed we need to submit an I-9 form so it is important that the applicant can produce a valid ID or we all are wasting time.

Judge: Why do you require the applicants to have a vehicle?

Defendant: Because in the past those employees without vehicles proved to have issues with their drivers licenses, and were not reliable. So we now require it as company policy of all employees for this position.

In this example, it would not be grounds to prove this company is discriminating. At worst they would get a slap on the wrist and told they should not ask for ID until after applicants are hired...but for them to even get that slap on the wrist, it would need to be proven they were using the ID for the sole purpose of name discrimination. It would be hard to prove this if they provide valid reasons for requesting ID pre or post application.

You must have seen who works at the car wash. Do you notice if their work force is a mixture of races...or notice they are only hiring a specific race? That would probably be asked at a hearing as well if it ever got to that point and could sway a decision.

Well, it certainly is not doing you any good to post your dissertations here.

Please report it to the EEOC and let us know what the resolution is.  I admit to having almost no knowledge of employment law and would be genuinely interested in what the real officials say as opposed to 'Internet experts'.

Okay you appear to be a fairly smart and articulate person.  So quite frankly I am not even sure why you were trying to apply at a Car Wash.  Unless it is to find some technicallity that you can exploit and possibly take advantage of..and as you post more and more IMO I am leaning toward the thought that you have a different motive.

So here is what you should do if you really feel that they did violate the law.  Get off your **S and go to the EEOC and file a complaint.  Because obviously you have it in set in stone that they are getting the ID for the sole purpose to discriminate against you.

Just as to a couple of your comments..

In other words, any method of obtaining information that does not separate the individual's name from his race or other identifying characteristic in the categories is prohibited!

- Seriously with that logic..Why stick with a Car Wash, go for the "Big Money". Just about every "professional" job has you send in a resume and I can guarantee you that 99% of the companies out there do not separate or block out the name when they are looking at them.   I can even guarantee you that even if the car wash handed you an application and you filled it out, that they would not separate your name from the rest of the information.

The name of the person,(legally it is your right to use another name on the application than your true name, another right you deny when you advocate what you do. Why is this important?

- Since you are the EEOC expert please provide us this law.  Oh, and I think we are still waiting on the law that says if they don't hire you because of a car it is discrimination.  While you are at it perhaps you could also enlighten us on what form of discrimination you think you are suffering from.

Once again, I am not trying to argue with the OP and I can understand this is a frustrating situation just for a car wash job.

However, the OP seems to be implying I am not comprehending the report...yet the OP is having trouble comprehending me.

The homeland security regulations are new..they are in addition to any existing EEO laws.

Asking for ID is in compliance. If you feel the only reason they are asking for ID is to discriminate then you would need to prove your case. Since most ID's do not state your race or any health issues...are you thinking they discriminate based on your age, name or address? I don't really understand.

Most places that discriminate would do so just by looking at you..and would not hire you whether you show ID or not. Perhaps in this job it requires you to operate customers vehicles in which case they have just cause to check that you have a valid drivers license. Either way, they will ask for proof of citizenship as per the I-9.

Once again, I do not know if this place actually discriminates or not from this report. We only know they require ID and owning a vehicle. If everyone who applies there for the same position is required to show ID and own a vehicle, then they are not discriminating. If they are in any violation of EEO, I can not be 100% sure but it does not seem so. As well even if they are, they may not even be aware. The laws and new regulations can be confusing..not every business has a legal team to figure all this stuff out.

If you feel they are in violation of any EEO laws..check with your states labor board and report back.

From what I can comprehend, your main complaint is that you couldn't even get them to hand you an application until you presented ID. If that in itself is in violation, then you have a case. But then you state you did get an application but were asked to show ID again, then were told you need to own a vehicle before being considered to be hired. I have not seen any hard evidence that these policies are in any direct violation of the law. However, if you did have a car and they still refused to hire you without a valid reason, a discrimination case could be considered, but would it really be worth it for this job?

As stated..you have the ID. Now get a vehicle and go back..or look for a job that does not require vehicle ownership. Or..try to fight this by starting at the state level. I don't know if they would hire you by force..but if they are in violation they would be in some trouble. Personally I do not believe they are. I guess it would need to be concluded that they are required 100% by law to hand an application to anyone without required a form of ID, and that they are required to consider anyone for this position whether they own a vehicle or not.

Why is it that you guys can never simply read or accept that i wrote something on the page? READ the page!!!!

The first sentence that you mention in your rebuttal, Robert, has no evidence to support it! Notice the topic of my report!

Car Wash Express ripoff report! Does not comply with EEOC regulations!!

Now why is it that after quoting the same EEOC references that were clear from my original report, that you still persist? Do not quote only parts of the paragraph and ignore the others. What does the next sentence say?

 . If an employer legitimately needs information about its employees' or applicants' race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow, it may obtain the necessary information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection by using a mechanism, such as "tear-off" sheets. This allows the employer to separate the race-related information from the information used to determine if a person is qualified for the job. Asking for race-related information on the telephone could probably never be justified.'

In other words, any method of obtaining information that does not separate the individual's name from his race or other identifying characteristic in the categories is prohibited!

Do you understand the relationship between the telephone and the id?Do you understand the principle of citing examples that those with common sense can use to connect these two ideas?

Do you understand that in the pre-hiring environment there is no other justification for wanting to know the race of the person?

Identification has the purpose of making clear characteristics unique to the name of the person on the photo. Employers need to know

The name of the person,(legally it is your right to use another name on the application than your true name, another right you deny when you advocate what you do. Why is this important? Because proven studies at MIT, Princeton and other groups have proven that a person is more likely or less likely to get hired depending on their names.

Those with "minority-sounding" names like blacks and hispanics were less likely to get hired than those with traditional, "white sounding" names. The applications for these studies were exactly the same with the exception of the name and sent to companies.

 whether he is of legal age(to be verified after) whether he is legally eligible to work (to be verified after employment has been accepted), and perhaps things like legitimate height and weight requirements. Height and weight you can find out after.

 

Social Security numbers which appear on some ids are available by asking on the application.

There is nothing on the id that cannot be retrieved after employment is accepted. Use common sense. If a person decides not to hire someone after getting this information, what is the point of asking? So i may know your race, color, and national origin beforehand?

EEOC regulations are in place as preventive measures, naturally this is the form of protection the regulation will take.

If it were up to you, no group would  have that preventive measure protection. There are sensible ways of extracting information needed without exposing this information to an employer. 

Race related information over the telephone after an application has been received connects the person to the race. This information can be used against them for considering interviews and hiring. That is why EEOC says this.

 Secondly, what does photo identification effect? The connection of the race and other statistics unnecessary for employment of the person with the applicants name.

Both the telephone conversation and asking for id effect the same status for the applicant. They are thus both prohibited. That is why EEOC says that they should not ask for id.

BTW, I think you need to read what i quoted about the EEOC. This is not just my rational, correct opinion. This is their official position. Again, for those slow in following.

"IRCA requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, by completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form, and reviewing documents showing the employee's identity and employment authorization. The law prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or insisting on additional documents beyond what is legally required for employment eligibility verification (or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on an employee's citizenship status or national origin. For example, e.g., an employer cannot require only individuals the employer perceives as "foreign" to verify their employment eligibility or produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident ("green") cards or Employment Authorization Documents. It is the employee's choice which of the permitted documents to show for employment eligibility verification. As long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face, and relates to the employee, it should be accepted.

 

Because of potential claims of illegal discrimination, employment eligibility verification should be conducted after an offer to hire has been made. Applicants may be informed of these requirements in the pre-employment setting by adding the following statement on the employment application:

 

"In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification document form upon hire."

You should understand what the words should and cant mean in context in sentences.

requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. Therefore, employers should not request information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race unless it has a legitimate business need for such information. If an employer legitimately needs information about its employees' or applicants' race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow, it may obtain the necessary information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection by using a mechanism, such as "tear-off" sheets. This allows the employer to separate the race-related information from the information used to determine if a person is qualified for the job. Asking for race-related information on the telephone could probably never be justified.'

The word should

Read the first sentence. Requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. If i request information about race, i am using race as a basis for hiring.

There is the legal way to do this and the illegal way to do this.

If it is done for affirmative action purposes or other reasons listed above, to protect the employee and prevent discrimination(the very purpose of eeoc guidelines) Then there must be a separation of the info in order to ensure that eeoc guidelines are being followed that the rights of these persons are being protected

Cant means (not without being non compliant with eeoc regulation.) Sure everyone can physically do alot of things illegal. But cant can be used in other ways.

You are really stretching to find a violation(IMO).  Everyone who claims discrimination ALWAYS thinks that theirs is legitimate.  So while you may feel that it is discrimination, nothing you have posted here shows that.  By the way what type of discrimination do you think you are being subjected to?  Because if it is the lack of a car, when you go to the EEOC with that they are going to laugh you out of the office.

Notice just from what you posted from the EEOC

"In general, it is assumed that pre-employment requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. Therefore, employers should not request information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race unless it has a legitimate business need for such information...

- I bolded the few words that may be of interest.  You stated that this says that an employer CAN NOT ask for identification. That is NOT what is says.  It says they "should not" and "in general".  But if they can show a legitimate business reason they are within their rights.  I am by no means an expert on the EEOC laws or running a car wash, so if they have a legitimate reason(even if YOU don't agree with it), then there is no violation.

If asking for info about race over the phone probably never could be justified according to the EEOC, then certainly asking for someone's id before their application is even considered for interview cant be justified.

- That may be YOUR opinion, but again that is not what the EEOC says.  If asking for ID before hand would "probably never be justified".  Then they would have said it for all cases, not just for the telephone.

By the way, the Equal Employment Opportunity Process is easy, and its free. Im not discouraged from filing charges of discrimination against employers.

- Yes you are, and when you do I hope that you post the results of it.  But unless there is some "smoking gun" you have that did not post here, the only thing you are going to do is cost another small business time and money to fight your claims..which at worst may be an honest mistake.  And in the end they still wouldn't have to hire you because not having a car is a legitimate concern and not discrimination.

Response to consumer comment #5.

If you dont realize that this is a clear eeo violation, and want to make it a non-issue, then youre just not using common sense. This issue is so simple yet all of you are distorting it so viciously. Do you have bias against claims of discrimination?

If you cant comprehend what i post, then dont comment until you do. My suggestion is to do research about identification. I have some quotes below. You will find that it is exactly as i say.

I have not seen one rational, evidence supported response thus far.

Ive seen rebuttals that indicate poor reading comprehension, evidenced by a reader quoting something that does not support his position, that you didnt understand what i wrote, or a response that looks like it wasnt read at all.

Perhaps you are tired of hearing claims of discrimination. In the past you probably have heard many, some of which for one reason or another you think is unsupported by facts. That does not mean you should disregard a legitimate claim of an illegal practice which could subject many to discrimination.

It is clear simply from rationale that asking for id beforehand can subject people to discrimination. And anyone who has gone to an employer honest to the situation will inform you that it is illegal to do so!

As far as the car wash, do not assume that simply because i post about the car wash that i am only interested in the car wash, and havent made attempt at employment besides this. My energy has been concentrated into many retail jobs. I will soon have a post up about them.

The incident at the car wash happened to catch my attention. It was a very bold act.

Wrongdoing such as this should be reported, and the public should be informed. Many members of the public, especially in Hinesville, are not aware of their rights. I spend half my energy battling with people who refuse to acknowledge the boundaries between their liberty and the rights of others, particularly my rights.

Consumer comment #6

You may have have been posting "the facts" that a person's id is required to be checked once he is an employee...This i have always stressed. However, note the distinction between requiring this before and after an employment offer is made and accepted.

Justifying asking for id beforehand does not follow logically from justification for asking for id afterwards. They are clearly two different things. Of course information about id's apply to much more than just race, but here is an example from EEOC.

Pre Employment Inquiries, (General)

As a general rule, the information obtained and requested through the pre-employment process should be limited to those essential for determining if a person is qualified for the job; whereas, information regarding race, sex, national origin, age, and religion are irrelevant in such determinations

.....Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pre- employment inquiries and race, Prohibited Practices

"In general, it is assumed that pre-employment requests for information will form the basis for hiring decisions. Therefore, employers should not request information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race unless it has a legitimate business need for such information. If an employer legitimately needs information about its employees' or applicants' race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow, it may obtain the necessary information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection by using a mechanism, such as "tear-off" sheets. This allows the employer to separate the race-related information from the information used to determine if a person is qualified for the job. Asking for race-related information on the telephone could probably never be justified.'

This means that an employer cannot ask for identification before hiring because it discloses and/or tends to disclose an applicant's race. They certainly cannot make it a mandatory condition of giving or accepting an application for consideration.

Now a person may argue that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, which i do believe, but in any case employers are clearly given an effective means of tracking any race-related info that is necessary without linking it to the person's application. Asking for identification to  photocopy or examine before the interview does not do this.

If asking for info about race over the phone probably never could be justified according to the EEOC, then certainly asking for someone's id before their application is even considered for interview cant be justified.

Take a look at this.

Pre- Employment Inquiries and Citizenship, Prohibited Practices, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"IRCA requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, by completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form, and reviewing documents showing the employee's identity and employment authorization. The law prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or insisting on additional documents beyond what is legally required for employment eligibility verification (or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on an employee's citizenship status or national origin. For example, e.g., an employer cannot require only individuals the employer perceives as "foreign" to verify their employment eligibility or produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident ("green") cards or Employment Authorization Documents. It is the employee's choice which of the permitted documents to show for employment eligibility verification. As long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face, and relates to the employee, it should be accepted.

Because of potential claims of illegal discrimination, employment eligibility verification should be conducted after an offer to hire has been made. Applicants may be informed of these requirements in the pre-employment setting by adding the following statement on the employment application:

"In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification document form upon hire."

Not upon applying, upon hire.

See now? The Car Wash Express never did have a valid defense. Stop assuming they did. The government never required them to do what you said. That's nonsense.

By the way, the Equal Employment Opportunity Process is easy, and its free. Im not discouraged from filing charges of discrimination against employers.

 

The bottom line is this. employers are REQUIRED by homeland security, to check your ID in order for you to be employed. Perhaps you want to argue with them whether or not they can only do this after or before you are allowed to fill out an application.

I was only posting the facts. Businesses are required to do this for any employees that are currently working for them..so some may have chosen to do this (check that your ID is legit) before even bothering to go through the interview and hiring process.

I am not saying you are wrong to be upset or offended, I am only saying that this car wash may not be in violation of EEO, or if they are, they are not by intent, only by what they have been notified they are REQUIRED to do by the Gub'ment.

As stated, is this really worth it for a car wash job? You seem intelligent and articulate  enough to find a better job. Or, go try to fight homeland security. Surely if you try to fight this car wash via the legal process, they are only going to say in court that they were complying with homeland security regulations...whether they are discriminating or not, they have a valid defense. You decide who to thank for that.

Here's some advice for you in your job search. Why don't you channel all of the energy that you are expending pissing and moaning about a non-issue into constructively looking for employment.

Are you really this interested in a career in the car wash industry?

A person of your obvious skills and education would probably be highly coveted by many Fortune 500 organizations. Walmart and McDonalds come to mind immediately.

Also, arguing with (by your own admission) typically isn't going to improve your chances.

Notice what i posted in the report

"They cannot legally ask you for your id as a condition of a person receiving or the employer accepting an application."...

"They can only ask for this after an offer of employment has been made and accepted"

Now notice what you quoted.

"All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. On the form, the employer must examine the employment and eligibility documents an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the individual and record the document information on the Form I-9"

What you quoted does not support your position. It does not say, for each individual an employer considers hiring. It says for each individual they hire for employment.

After the offer of employment has been made and accepted, seeing identification becomes legal. Beforehand it is not. That's the law. This is done to ensure equal employment rights.

It a common sense measure. The attacks on 9/11 did not negate these rights. The effective measure used to prevent illegal employment is already in place. It can be fairly dealt with after an offer of employment is accepted. Take a look at what you quoted

On the form the employer must examine the employment and eligibility documents an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonable appear to be genuine and relate to the individual...

There is no reason to presume that an individual is a terrorist or illegal immigrant/ineligible for work at the time an application is filled out. There is reason to conclude the latest if the documents, once examined after employment has been accepted, appear to be fake.

Also, notice that examination of id to determine whether it was genuine was not the focus of the company.

"Feeling discouraged, i decided not to have him photocopy my id."

Examinations to determine an ids legitimacy are done by inspecting the actual id. Not by just getting a copy of it before an offer of employment is made.

And yes, im already familiar with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website and discrimination rights.

 

Another example of how the terrorists "won"..and some of our rights are not like they used to be. Here is a copy from the homeland security website regarding the I9 form...

Employment Eligibility Verification

Purpose of Form :

All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States. This includes citizens and noncitizens. On the form, the employer must examine the employment eligibility and identity document(s) an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the individual and record the document information on the Form I-9.

As far as discrimination...that one is a gray area. Because technically working at a car wash should not require you to own a vehicle for any job related duties. The laws can be subject to interpretation but it may be difficult to prove it is discrimination if they require ALL applicants to own a vehicle. You would need to contact your states labor board just to find out if they are in violation..but at this point it may be easier to look elsewhere for work or get a vehicle and then re-apply.

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
• the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
• the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
• Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
• Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
• Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
• the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

I Argued with him...". You go into an establishment to seek work and ARGUE with the person who might be hiring you. And you wonder why they didn't call you back for an interview or hire you? Gee, I wonder why? The one manager probably called the other manager and told him about the fool who argued with him over the application process. Having a vehicle as a term of employement has NOTHING to do with race,  color, age etc, so don't try and play that card. What we have is a person seeking employment with an attitude problem" The words of the first rebuttal.

 I stress all readers to read and make honest attempts at understanding the entire report before responding.

I'll comment on the first sentence. The person had already determined that i would not be hired because i did not have transportation. My application was not considered anyway because they did not photocopy my id. Read my statement again.

The main focus of my report was that they engage in the illegal hiring practice of requiring identification before giving you an application and considering you for employment. This is not compatible with Equal Employment Opportunity guidelines. They would not consider reviewing the application unless you handed them id.

That illegal action was totally separate from an argument. You ignored what i said about this requirement not being communicated on the application. This is crucial for an employer to do..  And besides, you should be informed about the definition of the word argument.

Argumentation does not necessarily entail boisterous, unprofessional relations. Grab a dictionary.

The talk was brief and merely a short series of intelligent questions. " Why is personally owning transportation as opposed to friend....?" Extrapolations and comments along those lines as it clearly says. Besides which, a valid argument could be made that i could have my friend or family transport me to where i needed to go.

There is destructive and constructive forms of argumentation. Everyone should know that it is a man's right to inquire about things such as this. The rationale of the barring does not equate to a just stipulation of  conditions such as a degree in the area of work, or experience absolutely required(reasonably speaking) for the normal person to perform the duties of his office to standard.

 

A more insightful, 'right-aware" person however realizes that there is the potential for someone already violating eeoc regulation and perhaps already biased towards a potential employee to use this as an excuse rather then to be open about his/her discrimination.

Argumentation was not the cause of not being hired as is clear from my report.

Please, reflect on the entire report. Do not engage in unsound speculation.

If you are going to make the comments, support them with actual evidence.

"I Argued with him...". You go into an establishment to seek work and ARGUE with the person who might be hiring you. And you wonder why they didn't call you back for an interview or hire you? Gee, I wonder why? The one manager probably called the other manager and told him about the fool who argued with him over the application process. Having a vehicle as a term of employement has NOTHING to do with race,  color, age etc, so don't try and play that card. What we have is a person seeking employment with an attitude problem.