12 ms·

Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M

116 points by cfadvan 9y ago

codersbrew 9y ago
Their website looks horrible.
exhilaration 9y ago
I'm surprised to see that property rentals isn't listed under their "Industries" tab. I guess "Checkr is for every business" except that one. If anyone's curious, I use https://www.e-renter.com/ https://www.e-renter.com/ for background checks on prospective tenants and https://connect.experian.com/ https://connect.experian.com/ for credit checks.
- alehul 9y ago
  Though I could be mistaken, I believe it's different as it's enterprise-focused and aimed at checking potential employees rather than tenants.
  - mooreds 9y ago
    Yes. I talked to them about an adjacent vertical but they were super focused on the potential employees/contractors market. (This was about a year ago, so maybe they've changed their focus a bit.)
- RoboErectus 9y ago
  Launched this week: https://www.zillow.com/marketing/rental-manager/tenant-screening/ https://www.zillow.com/marketing/rental-manager/tenant-scree...
orange_county 9y ago
I used to work in the background screening company before switching careers. The background screening process is very tedious, each state and sometimes counties keep records in their own way. If you are lucky, you can easily just search for the person’s case online, however many times they only allow case searches over the phone. I’m wondering how Checkr handles that since it’s not an easy thing to scale. Even looking at their careers page, they are not even hiring any data entry folks to handle that.
- owenversteeg 9y ago
  Maybe that's outsourced to another company that does a ton of calling? I agree, I'm also very curious the various ways they obtain data.
  - leahcim 9y ago
    Are they using Upcall for calling?
gringoDan 9y ago
Checkr is minting money. I doubt they needed this cash infusion, but it could make sense to drive even more growth. Almost all of the on-demand companies (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc.) use the service to screen independent contractors. The kicker is that independent contractors often sign up for many of these services, so Checkr can turn around and sell the same data that they pull for 1 individual to 3+ companies at ~$15+ a pop.
- orange_county 9y ago
  Depending on regulations of this, I doubt they can resell. Especially if each background check is done days apart from each other. You may run into a scenario where a felony case was recorded in between background checks.
  - ben_jones 9y ago
    Armchairing but it seems likely that some of the data can be reused, for example historical data like maybe country of origin, residential addresses, etc.
  - gringoDan 9y ago
    Fair point. I can't speak to the regulations or ethics here. But in practice, with the number of ICs being activated daily, I doubt a low-level employee at an on-demand startup really cares or notices if the background check was run today vs. last week vs. last month. Even if it has to re-submit each time, given the volume of reports Checkr runs, it could negotiate such that the marginal cost of running a report decreases each time it is run for a given individual.
  - erichurkman 9y ago
    I'd love if they could re-use data to temporary supplement checks that take a long time. Some background checks can take _ages_ for certain counties, especially if they were a city/county employee, a police officer, or lived in some rural county that only does background checks via paper or fax and their city office is only open 10am to 3pm two days per week. If Checkr could tell me immediately, "We submitted the requests, but they may take a long time, so here's Bob's clear background check as of 2 years ago while you wait." (I've had a few background checks via Checkr take many weeks or more, meanwhile the employee is left in limbo. 98% were quick, but those 2% were painful; not Checkr's fault of course.)
owenversteeg 9y ago
The demo on the website is pretty interesting, especially with the amount of information they can get. The "previous salary" was pretty interesting - is that something that companies actually check? Also, is there a risk of abusing this? What information does Checkr need to run a report, and how do they verify that the person they are running the report on is actually applying for the relevant position?
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  They try to get salary, but often don’t get it. I’ve been asked for salary info on former employees. Equifax also owns a company called theworknumber, which your employer voluntarily provides with salary information. The standard language in background checks gives them permission to obtain it through any means, including asking your bank how much your direct deposit is, or asking your credit card company what your stated income was. I haven’t heard of anyone attempting to use those means, but technically they could.
  - justherefortart 9y ago
    If you're paid through ADP or any of the big payroll companies, they're sharing your information. It's wonderful.
    - learc83 9y ago
      ADP's privacy policy says this. >Unless directed by our clients, we do not share employee information provided by our clients with third parties. When directed by our clients, we communicate company employee information to third party service providers such as payroll service bureaus, insurance companies and third party administrators, among others. According to that, they'll only do it if directed by your employer.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        It doesn't say whether it's opt-in or opt-out, that is: I don't trust their use of the word "directed."
rusbus 9y ago
Maybe now they can buy a vowel. I say this only half as a joke. I recently had to use checkr. The first thing they ask you for is your social security number. Typing your social into a box below a misspelled URL isn't a super comforting experience
- josefresco 9y ago
  Founded in 2014, which makes the choice of name even more peculiar. Didn't the "dropping vowels" naming convention die with "Web 2.0"?
  - hobofan 9y ago
    With a lot of good brand and domain names already taken, it is alive and well.
- bgun 9y ago
  Do you consider Flickr to be "misspelled"? Would you trust Chick-fil-A to serve you food? Maybe the real reason Toys"R"Us went belly-up is because they couldn't afford vowels either.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  2004 called. They want their missing penultimate "e" back.
- jackweirdy 9y ago
  The process is even more fun when you don't have an SSN yet and the form doesn't know how to deal with that.
  - l4yao 9y ago
    Or if you specify that your employment history is outside the US, and they still require a W2.
sbhn 9y ago
My data, someone else’s money
baldfat 9y ago
I work in education with children and background checks in PA is as follows. 1) State Child Line background check (Mail in a form $15) 2) State Police Background check (Online Access $20 I get this back immediately) 3) FBI Finger Prints (UPS Store $50) So frustrating that we don't have a national registry with state police and national agencies. I Don't have to do the finger prints as much but the other clearances are every three years. The issue for driving is I have to get my driving record. Some agencies ask for multiple of years so this could mean multiple of states and many states have outsourced the work.
luckydata 9y ago
Whatever they do, they can't do worse than HireRight, the company with the most hilariously bad reviews I've ever seen in my life. https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-reviews/hireright.html https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-review... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-to-pay-26million-accused-of-failing-to-verify-background-checks/2012/08/08/5c80b654-e18a-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?utm_term=.d342add0245e https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-to... and https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/employment-background-screening-company-pay-26-million-penalty https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/emplo... They are the fucking worst.
- justherefortart 9y ago
  Wow, that's comical and sad at the same time. I have a few friends that would always pass background checks in spite of having some issues in their past. Maybe this is how they lucked out.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    It's quite sad that we (collectively) consider this "lucking out" - I don't want to assume your friends situations, but our collective consciousness leaves a permanent mark on their life for past mistakes. And checkr is even more help in the saturated background check industry.
    - luckydata 9y ago
      Actually, they did luck out. Usually, those companies report inaccuracies that tend to lose people jobs they completely deserve.
- Justin_K 9y ago
  I used Checkr once for screening an employee and had a terrible experience. After two weeks, the check was still pending as they had to do some sort of manual process with the courts in Los Angeles to complete it. I didn't find their service useful because of the delays and was promised many times that the report would be done shortly. Eventually I gave up and went to another service. I asked for a refund after about two weeks and was told NO, because the check had already been initiated. I don't think it's an acceptable SLA (two weeks or more) for a background check - most services turn these around in a couple of days.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
maaaats 9y ago
I find it quite scary that whether you can get employed or not is decided on the whim of some company. What if your record is wrong, and they won't fix it? And what value do you get of the screening? What can you find, that really would matter to a hiring decision, other than extreme cases?
- twothamendment 9y ago
  What if they dig up dirt on someone with the same or similar name? My mom can't give blood because of some guy with a name that is one letter different than hers. You'd think a different gender would make it easy to fix - but no, she finally gave up.
  - vhost- 9y ago
    I got served a court summons for someone who shares my name that was being sued for not paying 100k in medical debt to MY WORK. it was super embarrassing and they walked in and threw papers at me. It took me months to get it figured out because the people responsible for serving me just ignored me. They refused to believe they made a pretty massive research mistake. We had different middle names and birth dates.
    - djrogers 9y ago
      > It took me months to get it figured out Either way this would be a PITA, but it seems the easiest thing to do would be to just go ahead and show up in court. The judge would have you there for about 2 minutes before smacking down the lawyer for the side that summoned you, and sent you home. No reason to spend months working it all out...
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  I had to very recently correct my credit report because their happened to be another guy with my same name in another state. it didn't take long but was annoying. I also get a lot of that guys emails, he must have a similar gmail address to mine. super annoying. Sadly his insurance provider leaked a lot of his PII data to me through email. Which is probably still archived on gmail.
mschuster91 9y ago
This kind of company deserves to die, and the public record laws for highly personal data also. The obsession with "background checks" is a really huge part of why the US has extremely high recidivism rate. When people can't find a job even flipping burgers or distributing newspapers, they have no choice other than to go back to the criminal life. edit: as I got private feedback: it is not my intention to disrespect people flipping burgers or doing other "low level" jobs. My post was meant to illustrate that these two jobs usually do not require education and especially not a "background check", so it is entirely pointless to do these (or to not hire people with a... shady past).
- jstarfish 9y ago
  A few people I've known with criminal histories only managed to turn their lives around by scraping a business together for themselves, going into home contracting (handyman, exterminator, etc.). They had done time for stuff like narcotics trafficking and manslaughter and were never going to be hired by any employer otherwise. Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potential clients to do background checks on contractors. You wouldn't want to let a former criminal into your home to do repairs, after all. I don't know how they're making it these days.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potential clients to do background checks on contractors. You wouldn't want to let a former criminal into your home to do repairs, after all. How in f..ks name is this even legal, to begin with?
    - jstarfish 9y ago
      At some point some enterprising youts figured out how to scrape public records databases and re-sell the information. It's hardly illegal. It only got into illegal(ish) territory when they started gaming SEO to shame individuals with criminal records (so your mugshot was the first thing that came up on searches), charging money to de-prioritize those results, and not necessarily following through.
greatamerican 9y ago
This company exists solely to extend the punishment of people who have ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM. If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.
- Kalium 9y ago
  I've personally witnessed background checks used to catch people who flat-out lied in the hiring process. You're absolutely right. Those people had already been punished by the courts for their misdeeds against society. They were not going to suffer further at our hands. When they chose to lie to us during the hiring process, however, they committed a new misdeed that some might say justified additional reaction.
  - greatamerican 9y ago
    Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?
    - Kalium 9y ago
      To clarify a point on which there may be some doubt, the hiring process spelled out in quite certain terms that were in no way, shape, form, or manner less than completely clear that a criminal history was not an bar to employment. These were not empty words. The people clearly did not believe this, and made their own personal, individual choices to be dishonest with us. I absolutely understand how this was a fault in the hiring process. The hiring process of the company should have been much more patient for background check results. That way we would have caught that we were being lied to earlier. The nature of the roles in question - and the access to private and sensitive material involved - required us to care about the pasts of the candidates. Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
siruncledrew 9y ago
This is a pretty divisive issue with regards to recidivism and personal rights. As I see it: For employers: - They are looking out for their own asses. That's the reason why these background check companies exist in the first place. If there wasn't a liability that could potentially fall on the business from someone they hired, then this industry wouldn't be as big as it is. - If everything was 100% transparent in the hiring process, there would probably be way more criticism from lots of other things. Prior crime convictions aside, there's many reasons a candidate might be arbitrarily overlooked. Maybe the business searched for their social media accounts and didn't like what they saw. Maybe the person is ugly. Maybe the hiring manager has a negative opinion about their education history or what part of town they live in. Who knows. If they know what the laws are, they can also figure out how to get around them while still seeming compliant. - They do not give a shit about giving someone a second chance. They are not Make a Wish and thinking they are doing a solid to someone out of prison trying to get back on their feet. I would believe it if most applications submitted with the "prior criminal convictions" box checked are automatically filtered out of the applicant pool. The potential risk is just not worth the reward for the employers, which is why they choose to use services like checkr. - If the employer does keep applicants with prior convictions, they are probably going to lowball the candidate to hire them at a discount for the position, knowing the candidate has slim options with little leverage. - I don't see small businesses (outside of ones working with children, the government, or similar such instances) using a background check service as much as larger corporations that make lots of hires. The cost of multiple candidate background checks mounts quickly, so the business will likely only a background check on 1-2 people at most, probably after multiple interviews and at least 1 in-person communication. For employees/candidates: - It's like a shitty butterfly effect, where a mistake you paid for continually rains on your parade the rest of your life. There are no "fresh starts". - Knowing that most employers will throw your application in the trash if you have a criminal record, therefore limiting your own chances to try to improve yourself and be a contributing member of society, there is basically an incentive to lie on the application for the sake of just hoping the business won't find out. Essentially, by lying you reason to yourself you have more to gain than to lose. (Aside: Perhaps this is not the best kind of behavior to enforce for a person that just had to reconcile with their shitty behavior in prison). - Can we trust the companies behind the background checks? Their incentive is to profit, so they are not looking out for the people their services impact as much as the services their customers are buying. - How can peoples' rights to privacy and confidentiality be restored? This requires a lot of discussion and legislation to make a meaningful impact. These background check companies will not go down without putting up a lobbying fight.

116 points by cfadvan 9y ago

Their website looks horrible.

I'm surprised to see that property rentals isn't listed under their "Industries" tab. I guess "Checkr is for every business" except that one. If anyone's curious, I use https://www.e-renter.com/ https://www.e-renter.com/ for background checks on prospective tenants and https://connect.experian.com/ https://connect.experian.com/ for credit checks.

alehul 9y ago
Though I could be mistaken, I believe it's different as it's enterprise-focused and aimed at checking potential employees rather than tenants.
- mooreds 9y ago
  Yes. I talked to them about an adjacent vertical but they were super focused on the potential employees/contractors market. (This was about a year ago, so maybe they've changed their focus a bit.)
RoboErectus 9y ago
Launched this week: https://www.zillow.com/marketing/rental-manager/tenant-screening/ https://www.zillow.com/marketing/rental-manager/tenant-scree...

orange_county 9y ago

I used to work in the background screening company before switching careers. The background screening process is very tedious, each state and sometimes counties keep records in their own way. If you are lucky, you can easily just search for the person’s case online, however many times they only allow case searches over the phone. I’m wondering how Checkr handles that since it’s not an easy thing to scale. Even looking at their careers page, they are not even hiring any data entry folks to handle that.

owenversteeg 9y ago
Maybe that's outsourced to another company that does a ton of calling? I agree, I'm also very curious the various ways they obtain data.
- leahcim 9y ago
  Are they using Upcall for calling?

gringoDan 9y ago

Checkr is minting money. I doubt they needed this cash infusion, but it could make sense to drive even more growth. Almost all of the on-demand companies (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc.) use the service to screen independent contractors. The kicker is that independent contractors often sign up for many of these services, so Checkr can turn around and sell the same data that they pull for 1 individual to 3+ companies at ~$15+ a pop.

orange_county 9y ago
Depending on regulations of this, I doubt they can resell. Especially if each background check is done days apart from each other. You may run into a scenario where a felony case was recorded in between background checks.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  Armchairing but it seems likely that some of the data can be reused, for example historical data like maybe country of origin, residential addresses, etc.
- gringoDan 9y ago
  Fair point. I can't speak to the regulations or ethics here. But in practice, with the number of ICs being activated daily, I doubt a low-level employee at an on-demand startup really cares or notices if the background check was run today vs. last week vs. last month. Even if it has to re-submit each time, given the volume of reports Checkr runs, it could negotiate such that the marginal cost of running a report decreases each time it is run for a given individual.
- erichurkman 9y ago
  I'd love if they could re-use data to temporary supplement checks that take a long time. Some background checks can take _ages_ for certain counties, especially if they were a city/county employee, a police officer, or lived in some rural county that only does background checks via paper or fax and their city office is only open 10am to 3pm two days per week. If Checkr could tell me immediately, "We submitted the requests, but they may take a long time, so here's Bob's clear background check as of 2 years ago while you wait." (I've had a few background checks via Checkr take many weeks or more, meanwhile the employee is left in limbo. 98% were quick, but those 2% were painful; not Checkr's fault of course.)

owenversteeg 9y ago

The demo on the website is pretty interesting, especially with the amount of information they can get. The "previous salary" was pretty interesting - is that something that companies actually check? Also, is there a risk of abusing this? What information does Checkr need to run a report, and how do they verify that the person they are running the report on is actually applying for the relevant position?

lawnchair_larry 9y ago
They try to get salary, but often don’t get it. I’ve been asked for salary info on former employees. Equifax also owns a company called theworknumber, which your employer voluntarily provides with salary information. The standard language in background checks gives them permission to obtain it through any means, including asking your bank how much your direct deposit is, or asking your credit card company what your stated income was. I haven’t heard of anyone attempting to use those means, but technically they could.
- justherefortart 9y ago
  If you're paid through ADP or any of the big payroll companies, they're sharing your information. It's wonderful.
  - learc83 9y ago
    ADP's privacy policy says this. >Unless directed by our clients, we do not share employee information provided by our clients with third parties. When directed by our clients, we communicate company employee information to third party service providers such as payroll service bureaus, insurance companies and third party administrators, among others. According to that, they'll only do it if directed by your employer.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      It doesn't say whether it's opt-in or opt-out, that is: I don't trust their use of the word "directed."

rusbus 9y ago

Maybe now they can buy a vowel. I say this only half as a joke. I recently had to use checkr. The first thing they ask you for is your social security number. Typing your social into a box below a misspelled URL isn't a super comforting experience

josefresco 9y ago
Founded in 2014, which makes the choice of name even more peculiar. Didn't the "dropping vowels" naming convention die with "Web 2.0"?
- hobofan 9y ago
  With a lot of good brand and domain names already taken, it is alive and well.
bgun 9y ago
Do you consider Flickr to be "misspelled"? Would you trust Chick-fil-A to serve you food? Maybe the real reason Toys"R"Us went belly-up is because they couldn't afford vowels either.
DonHopkins 9y ago
2004 called. They want their missing penultimate "e" back.
jackweirdy 9y ago
The process is even more fun when you don't have an SSN yet and the form doesn't know how to deal with that.
- l4yao 9y ago
  Or if you specify that your employment history is outside the US, and they still require a W2.

sbhn 9y ago

My data, someone else’s money

baldfat 9y ago

I work in education with children and background checks in PA is as follows. 1) State Child Line background check (Mail in a form $15) 2) State Police Background check (Online Access $20 I get this back immediately) 3) FBI Finger Prints (UPS Store $50) So frustrating that we don't have a national registry with state police and national agencies. I Don't have to do the finger prints as much but the other clearances are every three years. The issue for driving is I have to get my driving record. Some agencies ask for multiple of years so this could mean multiple of states and many states have outsourced the work.

luckydata 9y ago

Whatever they do, they can't do worse than HireRight, the company with the most hilariously bad reviews I've ever seen in my life. https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-reviews/hireright.html https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-review... and https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-to-pay-26million-accused-of-failing-to-verify-background-checks/2012/08/08/5c80b654-e18a-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?utm_term=.d342add0245e https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-to... and https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/employment-background-screening-company-pay-26-million-penalty https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/emplo... They are the fucking worst.

justherefortart 9y ago
Wow, that's comical and sad at the same time. I have a few friends that would always pass background checks in spite of having some issues in their past. Maybe this is how they lucked out.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  It's quite sad that we (collectively) consider this "lucking out" - I don't want to assume your friends situations, but our collective consciousness leaves a permanent mark on their life for past mistakes. And checkr is even more help in the saturated background check industry.
  - luckydata 9y ago
    Actually, they did luck out. Usually, those companies report inaccuracies that tend to lose people jobs they completely deserve.
Justin_K 9y ago
I used Checkr once for screening an employee and had a terrible experience. After two weeks, the check was still pending as they had to do some sort of manual process with the courts in Los Angeles to complete it. I didn't find their service useful because of the delays and was promised many times that the report would be done shortly. Eventually I gave up and went to another service. I asked for a refund after about two weeks and was told NO, because the check had already been initiated. I don't think it's an acceptable SLA (two weeks or more) for a background check - most services turn these around in a couple of days.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

maaaats 9y ago

I find it quite scary that whether you can get employed or not is decided on the whim of some company. What if your record is wrong, and they won't fix it? And what value do you get of the screening? What can you find, that really would matter to a hiring decision, other than extreme cases?

twothamendment 9y ago
What if they dig up dirt on someone with the same or similar name? My mom can't give blood because of some guy with a name that is one letter different than hers. You'd think a different gender would make it easy to fix - but no, she finally gave up.
- vhost- 9y ago
  I got served a court summons for someone who shares my name that was being sued for not paying 100k in medical debt to MY WORK. it was super embarrassing and they walked in and threw papers at me. It took me months to get it figured out because the people responsible for serving me just ignored me. They refused to believe they made a pretty massive research mistake. We had different middle names and birth dates.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    > It took me months to get it figured out Either way this would be a PITA, but it seems the easiest thing to do would be to just go ahead and show up in court. The judge would have you there for about 2 minutes before smacking down the lawyer for the side that summoned you, and sent you home. No reason to spend months working it all out...
optimuspaul 9y ago
I had to very recently correct my credit report because their happened to be another guy with my same name in another state. it didn't take long but was annoying. I also get a lot of that guys emails, he must have a similar gmail address to mine. super annoying. Sadly his insurance provider leaked a lot of his PII data to me through email. Which is probably still archived on gmail.

mschuster91 9y ago

This kind of company deserves to die, and the public record laws for highly personal data also. The obsession with "background checks" is a really huge part of why the US has extremely high recidivism rate. When people can't find a job even flipping burgers or distributing newspapers, they have no choice other than to go back to the criminal life. edit: as I got private feedback: it is not my intention to disrespect people flipping burgers or doing other "low level" jobs. My post was meant to illustrate that these two jobs usually do not require education and especially not a "background check", so it is entirely pointless to do these (or to not hire people with a... shady past).

jstarfish 9y ago
A few people I've known with criminal histories only managed to turn their lives around by scraping a business together for themselves, going into home contracting (handyman, exterminator, etc.). They had done time for stuff like narcotics trafficking and manslaughter and were never going to be hired by any employer otherwise. Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potential clients to do background checks on contractors. You wouldn't want to let a former criminal into your home to do repairs, after all. I don't know how they're making it these days.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Then, in the vein of technological progress, services started popping up encouraging potential clients to do background checks on contractors. You wouldn't want to let a former criminal into your home to do repairs, after all. How in f..ks name is this even legal, to begin with?
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    At some point some enterprising youts figured out how to scrape public records databases and re-sell the information. It's hardly illegal. It only got into illegal(ish) territory when they started gaming SEO to shame individuals with criminal records (so your mugshot was the first thing that came up on searches), charging money to de-prioritize those results, and not necessarily following through.

greatamerican 9y ago

This company exists solely to extend the punishment of people who have ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM. If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.

Kalium 9y ago
I've personally witnessed background checks used to catch people who flat-out lied in the hiring process. You're absolutely right. Those people had already been punished by the courts for their misdeeds against society. They were not going to suffer further at our hands. When they chose to lie to us during the hiring process, however, they committed a new misdeed that some might say justified additional reaction.
- greatamerican 9y ago
  Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    To clarify a point on which there may be some doubt, the hiring process spelled out in quite certain terms that were in no way, shape, form, or manner less than completely clear that a criminal history was not an bar to employment. These were not empty words. The people clearly did not believe this, and made their own personal, individual choices to be dishonest with us. I absolutely understand how this was a fault in the hiring process. The hiring process of the company should have been much more patient for background check results. That way we would have caught that we were being lied to earlier. The nature of the roles in question - and the access to private and sensitive material involved - required us to care about the pasts of the candidates. Is it possible that you consider the flaw in the process to be of a different nature? Such as that there should under no circumstances be any interest in a person's criminal history in any hiring process?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

siruncledrew 9y ago

This is a pretty divisive issue with regards to recidivism and personal rights. As I see it: For employers: - They are looking out for their own asses. That's the reason why these background check companies exist in the first place. If there wasn't a liability that could potentially fall on the business from someone they hired, then this industry wouldn't be as big as it is. - If everything was 100% transparent in the hiring process, there would probably be way more criticism from lots of other things. Prior crime convictions aside, there's many reasons a candidate might be arbitrarily overlooked. Maybe the business searched for their social media accounts and didn't like what they saw. Maybe the person is ugly. Maybe the hiring manager has a negative opinion about their education history or what part of town they live in. Who knows. If they know what the laws are, they can also figure out how to get around them while still seeming compliant. - They do not give a shit about giving someone a second chance. They are not Make a Wish and thinking they are doing a solid to someone out of prison trying to get back on their feet. I would believe it if most applications submitted with the "prior criminal convictions" box checked are automatically filtered out of the applicant pool. The potential risk is just not worth the reward for the employers, which is why they choose to use services like checkr. - If the employer does keep applicants with prior convictions, they are probably going to lowball the candidate to hire them at a discount for the position, knowing the candidate has slim options with little leverage. - I don't see small businesses (outside of ones working with children, the government, or similar such instances) using a background check service as much as larger corporations that make lots of hires. The cost of multiple candidate background checks mounts quickly, so the business will likely only a background check on 1-2 people at most, probably after multiple interviews and at least 1 in-person communication. For employees/candidates: - It's like a shitty butterfly effect, where a mistake you paid for continually rains on your parade the rest of your life. There are no "fresh starts". - Knowing that most employers will throw your application in the trash if you have a criminal record, therefore limiting your own chances to try to improve yourself and be a contributing member of society, there is basically an incentive to lie on the application for the sake of just hoping the business won't find out. Essentially, by lying you reason to yourself you have more to gain than to lose. (Aside: Perhaps this is not the best kind of behavior to enforce for a person that just had to reconcile with their shitty behavior in prison). - Can we trust the companies behind the background checks? Their incentive is to profit, so they are not looking out for the people their services impact as much as the services their customers are buying. - How can peoples' rights to privacy and confidentiality be restored? This requires a lot of discussion and legislation to make a meaningful impact. These background check companies will not go down without putting up a lobbying fight.