5 ms·

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 co

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 8y 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 8y ago
  Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?
  - Kalium 8y 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 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ndespres 8y ago
      >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? Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." so it's difficult to understand why you are so firm on this point. Anyhow, there are plenty of protected groups of people that a prospective employer can't legally discriminate against, yet the discrimination still happens. The applicant has to take a calculated risk when deciding whether to answer the question about criminal history honestly. Maybe a better question on the application, rather than asking outright about criminal history and discarding an applicant when you catch them in a lie, is asking about relevant convictions that might have some implications about whether that person has a history of violations in your area of practice, or present a conflict to your customers.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        > You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." I understand why you feel that way. Your heart is in the right place, and you care deeply about those suffering at the hands of a heartless society. Your blossoming of pure compassion is wonderful! Yet, it's possible that you have not caught me in a contradiction. We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar. You're absolutely right that the applicant took a calculated risk and opted to lie. And we took a calculated risk by trusting their initial response. After that, we were much more cautious about waiting for background-check results. I understand why you believe the question as you phrased it is better. It defers to the candidate's judgment and allows them to offer only the narrow bits of information that they think could be relevant. It maximizes their discretion and minimizes the risk of being discriminated against for a history that's over. It is, however, just possible that some might prefer to allow candidates the opportunity to be forthright, honest, and transparent?
  - throwaway2041 8y ago
    Why? From the company's perspective it makes sense to ask if an applicant has a criminal record. Statistically someone with a prior conviction is much more likely to commit a future crime
    - maaaats 8y ago
      Might that be because it's impossible to get a job after your first conviction?
      - Kalium 8y ago
        What's sad is that in each of the cases I have encountered, the convictions that were concealed would not have been issues. It was the lying about them that did it.
jaredhansen 8y ago
First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require us to commit to background checks on everyone we hire). Secondly: I don't understand all the hatred here. Who, exactly, is this going to prevent from getting a job? People who were honest in their application when asked about prior convictions/etc, or people who lied? Why should businesses be forced to hire people who lie about past misdeeds? There's a perfectly reasonable way for people who have done bad things, and been "PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM") to handle it: you tell the employer "x years ago I was convicted of X bad thing. I was guilty, but I learned from the experience and changed. Here are three character references who have known me both before and after, and I'm happy to tell you more about this if you want to know". If you are honest in your application, a background check will only corroborate your truthfulness. And if you're not, why should we as a society object to someone taking that into account when considering whether to trust you?
- optimuspaul 8y ago
  I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business. The problem though isn't that liars are getting jobs but also the honest people. Valuable skills are overlooked because a past mistake has sullied their appearance.
  - jaredhansen 8y ago
    >I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business. But that's simply not true. Peoples' past behavior has a predictive value over their probable future behavior and we all know this, and it applies in positive directions as well as negative. I mean, this is why we ask about "experience": because we think that if you did X competently in the past, you are more likely to be able to do X competently in the future. This predictive power is not perfect, of course, but it's silly to claim that it's "none of the bank's business that I stole $1M from the last bank I worked at", or "none of the kindergarten's business that I previously molested 15 children". People who get turned down for jobs because they did bad things years ago (1) didn't have to have done those things, and (2) have ample opportunity to demonstrate that they have improved/moved on/"are a different person now"/etc. Companies may lose out by failing to hire some of the best of that group, but it's not insane or evil for companies as a group to be hesitant.

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 8y 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 8y ago
Do you understand why this is an indictment of your hiring process, rather than of those people?
- Kalium 8y 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 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ndespres 8y ago
    >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? Yes. If, as you say, criminal history was not a bar to employment, why ask the question at all if you are going to run a background check anyhow? You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." so it's difficult to understand why you are so firm on this point. Anyhow, there are plenty of protected groups of people that a prospective employer can't legally discriminate against, yet the discrimination still happens. The applicant has to take a calculated risk when deciding whether to answer the question about criminal history honestly. Maybe a better question on the application, rather than asking outright about criminal history and discarding an applicant when you catch them in a lie, is asking about relevant convictions that might have some implications about whether that person has a history of violations in your area of practice, or present a conflict to your customers.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > You contradict yourself by stating that "criminal history was not an bar to employment" but also that "The nature of the roles in question [...] required us to care about the pasts of the candidates." I understand why you feel that way. Your heart is in the right place, and you care deeply about those suffering at the hands of a heartless society. Your blossoming of pure compassion is wonderful! Yet, it's possible that you have not caught me in a contradiction. We would not have cared about, say, a past conviction for handling marijuana or anything vehicle related. We might have cared about a recent conviction for fraud. Honesty was paramount for that position, and choosing to lie to us was definitely a bar. You're absolutely right that the applicant took a calculated risk and opted to lie. And we took a calculated risk by trusting their initial response. After that, we were much more cautious about waiting for background-check results. I understand why you believe the question as you phrased it is better. It defers to the candidate's judgment and allows them to offer only the narrow bits of information that they think could be relevant. It maximizes their discretion and minimizes the risk of being discriminated against for a history that's over. It is, however, just possible that some might prefer to allow candidates the opportunity to be forthright, honest, and transparent?
- throwaway2041 8y ago
  Why? From the company's perspective it makes sense to ask if an applicant has a criminal record. Statistically someone with a prior conviction is much more likely to commit a future crime
  - maaaats 8y ago
    Might that be because it's impossible to get a job after your first conviction?
    - Kalium 8y ago
      What's sad is that in each of the cases I have encountered, the convictions that were concealed would not have been issues. It was the lying about them that did it.

jaredhansen 8y ago

First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough" about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in enterprise/gov/edu and require us to commit to background checks on everyone we hire). Secondly: I don't understand all the hatred here. Who, exactly, is this going to prevent from getting a job? People who were honest in their application when asked about prior convictions/etc, or people who lied? Why should businesses be forced to hire people who lie about past misdeeds? There's a perfectly reasonable way for people who have done bad things, and been "PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM") to handle it: you tell the employer "x years ago I was convicted of X bad thing. I was guilty, but I learned from the experience and changed. Here are three character references who have known me both before and after, and I'm happy to tell you more about this if you want to know". If you are honest in your application, a background check will only corroborate your truthfulness. And if you're not, why should we as a society object to someone taking that into account when considering whether to trust you?

optimuspaul 8y ago
I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business. The problem though isn't that liars are getting jobs but also the honest people. Valuable skills are overlooked because a past mistake has sullied their appearance.
- jaredhansen 8y ago
  >I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past is none of the potential employers business. But that's simply not true. Peoples' past behavior has a predictive value over their probable future behavior and we all know this, and it applies in positive directions as well as negative. I mean, this is why we ask about "experience": because we think that if you did X competently in the past, you are more likely to be able to do X competently in the future. This predictive power is not perfect, of course, but it's silly to claim that it's "none of the bank's business that I stole $1M from the last bank I worked at", or "none of the kindergarten's business that I previously molested 15 children". People who get turned down for jobs because they did bad things years ago (1) didn't have to have done those things, and (2) have ample opportunity to demonstrate that they have improved/moved on/"are a different person now"/etc. Companies may lose out by failing to hire some of the best of that group, but it's not insane or evil for companies as a group to be hesitant.