4 ms·

Classism lies at the heart of it. If someone is in a lower income job, higher ups are desperate to avoid hiring the "wrong sort of those people." In higher end

Classism lies at the heart of it. If someone is in a lower income job, higher ups are desperate to avoid hiring the "wrong sort of those people." In higher end jobs, they'll readily make excuses for past behavior (oh, it was just a youthful mistake). It sometimes amazes me that I've been hired into positions where I could have singlehandedly cost a company millions of dollars in revenue, but never had a single background check. ---- Of course, a much more charitable explanation would be that there's an "efficiency wage" effect behind background checks. For good jobs, the job itself is good enough that employers assume you'd be stupid to somehow jeopardize it by stealing or committing a crime. In contrast, shitty retail jobs are bad and everybody knows it—the company assumes that your loss from the job wouldn't be big enough to offset the gains you might make from stealing. This could be a similar explanation for why immigrants commit fewer crimes: they have more to lose.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Classism lies at the heart of it. This seems overly-dramatic. The reality is that there is a lot of petty crime with people who handle cash, compared to those on a white collar career path. Petty crime happens so often its not even reported, and white collar crime is so rare it makes the news, so you may be skewed to think that casual stealing from retail employers is rare, but it certainly is not. On top of it, the kinds of people most likely to work with a cash register are those who are largely unknowns. Yes, I do trust the guy with 15 years experience in finance more compared to the teen getting his first or second job to better handle money. Also criminality goes down with age. Experience tells me 15 year career guy has made it this far without getting arrested and has a lot of skin the in the game. Its not "classist" to think so. Its basic risk analysis. Just because something seems distasteful to you doesn't mean its wrong. I wish more people understood this simple concept. That said, I've gotten background checked at every white collar job I've had. Companies need a CYA for new hires and that's how its typically done. This has been the standard in my field for decades. Not sure where the idea that white collar people are immune from background checks comes from. It certainly isn't common in my peer group. It may also be that a lot of entry level retail jobs are mostly from large corporate employers who have top-down policies regarding background checks. Sure, Walmart did a check on you but your uncle didn't for a summer job filling out TPS reports at his company. That's not a sign of a conspiracy, but different values/risk assumption from two different organizations.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  > Petty crime happens so often its not even reported, and white collar crime is so rare it makes the news You are making a strong claim about the frequency of unreported events. Where does your data come from? > Experience tells me 15 year career guy has made it this far without getting arrested and has a lot of skin the in the game What experience are you talking about? It sounds more like you are making a logical argument, rather than an experiential one: the while collar must be more trustworthy because he has more money to lose. It is obvious to you that the more money you are making, the more honest you must be. That's a logical conclusion at best, not an experience.
BurningFrog 11y ago
It seems more likely that the people making hiring decisions for a living do these checks for jobs where it turns out they're useful.
- dikdik 11y ago
  Unfortunately, they have not been proven useful. The credit reporting agencies do sell it to companies as "useful" to measure a candidate's integrity and ability to succeed. However, if you watch John Oliver's segment you will see at least 1 agency testified under oath that they have no evidence to back up their claims. All it can be said to do is to weed out poor people or conversely allow terrible employers to pinpoint candidates that they can easily abuse because they are so far in debt.
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    Most things people do have not been proven useful scientifically. That is very different from being proven useless.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>Classism lies at the heart of it. This seems overly-dramatic. The reality is that there is a lot of petty crime with people who handle cash, compared to those on a white collar career path. Petty crime happens so often its not even reported, and white collar crime is so rare it makes the news, so you may be skewed to think that casual stealing from retail employers is rare, but it certainly is not. On top of it, the kinds of people most likely to work with a cash register are those who are largely unknowns. Yes, I do trust the guy with 15 years experience in finance more compared to the teen getting his first or second job to better handle money. Also criminality goes down with age. Experience tells me 15 year career guy has made it this far without getting arrested and has a lot of skin the in the game. Its not "classist" to think so. Its basic risk analysis. Just because something seems distasteful to you doesn't mean its wrong. I wish more people understood this simple concept. That said, I've gotten background checked at every white collar job I've had. Companies need a CYA for new hires and that's how its typically done. This has been the standard in my field for decades. Not sure where the idea that white collar people are immune from background checks comes from. It certainly isn't common in my peer group. It may also be that a lot of entry level retail jobs are mostly from large corporate employers who have top-down policies regarding background checks. Sure, Walmart did a check on you but your uncle didn't for a summer job filling out TPS reports at his company. That's not a sign of a conspiracy, but different values/risk assumption from two different organizations.

erikpukinskis 11y ago
> Petty crime happens so often its not even reported, and white collar crime is so rare it makes the news You are making a strong claim about the frequency of unreported events. Where does your data come from? > Experience tells me 15 year career guy has made it this far without getting arrested and has a lot of skin the in the game What experience are you talking about? It sounds more like you are making a logical argument, rather than an experiential one: the while collar must be more trustworthy because he has more money to lose. It is obvious to you that the more money you are making, the more honest you must be. That's a logical conclusion at best, not an experience.

BurningFrog 11y ago

It seems more likely that the people making hiring decisions for a living do these checks for jobs where it turns out they're useful.

dikdik 11y ago
Unfortunately, they have not been proven useful. The credit reporting agencies do sell it to companies as "useful" to measure a candidate's integrity and ability to succeed. However, if you watch John Oliver's segment you will see at least 1 agency testified under oath that they have no evidence to back up their claims. All it can be said to do is to weed out poor people or conversely allow terrible employers to pinpoint candidates that they can easily abuse because they are so far in debt.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  Most things people do have not been proven useful scientifically. That is very different from being proven useless.