8 ms·

I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access

• ericpauley 3y ago
  The issue with this is that, if you ban employers from getting signal about employees, they will attempt to infer the same information by other means. This inference can often be unfairly biased. See related issues with racial discrimination caused by Ban the Box initiatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/upshot/ban-the-box-an-effort-to-stop-discrimination-may-actually-increase-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/upshot/ban-the-box-an-eff...
  • yieldcrv 3y ago
    > Before the regulations took effect, candidates with criminal histories were far less likely to be called back, irrespective of race. > After the regulations, lacking the ability to discern criminal history, employers became much less likely to call back any apparently black applicant. They seemed to treat all black applicants now as if they might have a criminal past. “show us your linkedin”
    • al_borland 3y ago
      When I was involved in hiring I was told we couldn’t do any online research on potential candidates, like LinkedIn or Facebook, as it might give us information on them being part of a protected class. It’s easier to justify not picking someone based on merit when there is no knowledge of those things.
      • chihuahua 3y ago
        When I was looking for a job a few months ago, every single application required answering multiple questions about whether I'm Hispanic, and if not, which race I am. Additionally, some employers demand to know my sexual identity AND orientation, which I consider ludicrous and obscene. "Before we can consider your application, we must know who you like to have sex with!" Ostensibly this is for some kind of reporting and statistics, but I feel bad while answering it every time (about 100+ times last year) and wonder if checking the box that says "prefer not to say" automatically disqualifies me.
        • bombcar 3y ago
          I feel a concentrated program to always check “do not say” would be powerfully useful. There’s no way it doesn’t get seen/noticed. Proof: next time check a box that obviously doesn’t apply and watch if they notice.
        • yieldcrv 3y ago
          I've seen so much vitriol from the pronoun army - the ones that don't need them but want to make it inclusive for the people that do need them - that I really wonder if its optional in the organizations/applications that ask like "oh he didn't write a pronoun at all! he's not a culture fit!" we've decided to move forward with other candidates that more closely align with our qualifications
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
          • 3y ago
• yterdy 3y ago
  Unfortunately, in America, a history of race and class discrimination in employment has created a culture that requires there be some way to summarily dismiss undesirables. Background checks are part of the toolset for routing around anti-discrimination laws. Without them, the system of nepotism and intra-group favor-trading that recruitment is characterized by breaks down; you'd have to actually hire people based on their qualifications. Qué horror.
• hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I mostly agree with that, but I think it should be more along the lines of standardization WRT job responsibilities. I.e. any job would be categorized similarly to how you put it, with categories like "handles money" or "access to children" or whatever. Then, to do a background check, you just input those job categories and an applicants ID info and get back a "no adverse events" result, or otherwise get back info on only crimes relevant to the categories specified. My understanding is that is basically how some EU countries do it. I think companies would welcome this sort of standardization (including how many years it would take for different adverse events to fall off your record) as it would help insulate them from claims of bias.
• rdiddly 3y ago
  The funny part about your third paragraph, is that if someone took you up on this "bad employee database," it would look a lot like China's Social Credit System. Which is probably not desirable. (And maybe the other funny part would be just how many of the public employees who would otherwise be in charge of administering this database, would end up being in it!) Nonetheless I agree with the point you seem to be making rhetorically, which is that the reason this is a failure is because one thing (criminal record) is being used as a proxy to measure another (job qualification). And perhaps a larger point, given that things are the way they are, would be that our society cares only about punishment, not rehabilitation of individuals and not even (surprisingly) helping business.
  • stanleykm 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • xwolfi 3y ago
    Even funnier is that there is no Social Credit System in China, not the way you think there is. There is no record of small offences by the billion and a half Chinese, we're barely even able to maintain proper records in general, let alone useless fluff like a score for each citizen. I invite you to read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-social-credit-system-authoritarian/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-social-credit-sys... I quote: "Contrary to common belief, the cities mainly target companies, not individuals. Nonetheless, legal representatives of a violating company are also included in the blacklists to prevent reoffending elsewhere or under a different company. Nationally, about 75 percent of entities targeted by the system end up on blacklists because of court orders they have ignored—the so-called judgment defaulters. The remaining companies are typically collared for severe marketplace violations—for instance, for food safety infringements, environmental damage, or wage arrears. But much of these cities’ day-to-day use of the SCS is banal thanks to the system’s fragmentation and inflation of results." The gist of it is that it was a grading system for businesses, to distinguish the bad payers, often bankrupts people restarting business over and over. This is ofc not great because we would need a "start over" mindset like in the US, but stop reading buzzfeed-like news about this thing, it's a bit cringe. We are oppressed maybe, but not THAT good at it. Most of the censorship in China is self inflicted and networked, from the bottom, think "shhh don't say that you'll be in trouble" or "I prefer not to answer that question, wink wink". No need for complicated expensive systems diverting taxpayer money away from the pockets of our dear leaders, when a simple 2-hour interview of one person at the police station can silence an entire social graph of hundreds of people for months :)
• andy99 3y ago
  Why would government work automatically allow for a background check? If anything, government should be more neutral than private employers who should be allowed to use their own discretion when spending their money. Government procurement is so focused on appearances. I'd definitely support government not discriminating based on crimes for which someone had paid their debt to society.
  • tapland 3y ago
    I agree with the previous persons point, which you just flat out disagree with but for some reason veil in some private vs public wording. Many government functions handle data that the private sector probably shouldn't, and you can't easily choose other govenment providers.
    • sneak 3y ago
      Many private sector companies handle data that the general public probably shouldn’t. Extending special protections to the state that are not allowed to private employers is ridiculous and unsafe. Companies like credit bureaus or banks or the telcos or airlines or hospitals are effectively arms of the state at this point. You don’t get to opt out of the oligarchy with consumer choice.
• prosqlinjector 3y ago
  The elephant in the room is legal liability. If something happens with a criminal employee then the question is raised "what precautions did you take from letting this dangerous person into your workplace".
  • scrapcode 3y ago
    Does that really cause legal liability, though? The state/federal entity that released them from prison is essentially saying 'okay, we think this person has paid their dues and has a good chance at being a productive member of society.'
    • bsdpufferfish 3y ago
      You have a lot of faith in public opinion. What would your family and friends think if they found out a teacher at your child’s high school had done 20 years?
      • Biganon 3y ago
        Who cares what they think; would a judge consider me liable because I hired the ex felon? If so, aren't they admitting that the criminal system shouldn't be trusted?
        • bsdpufferfish 3y ago
          You’re talking about the criminal system, I’m talking about civil suits.
      • scrapcode 3y ago
        I get the sentiment, and there is due diligence such as background checks required for many public trust positions for that reason, but is there really legal liability created immediately at the time of hiring someone because of their record- or does it just satisfy the models more when you hire someone that got convicted versus someone that has not?
  • 3y ago
• 300bps 3y ago
  An assault charge is likely relevant for most positions. If I hire a convicted felon with a track record of assault and they end up assaulting another employee or customer, I’d feel responsible. The victim would probably hold me legally responsible. I’d feel more comfortable hiring someone with a 100% track record of never having been convicted of assault. If you disagree, is there any number of assault convictions that would change your mind? Or do you mentally wipe the slate clean no matter what?
  • NegativeLatency 3y ago
    I think it really depends. Someone who had an a assault conviction at say 18 and is now 40, is a different situation from someone who very recently assaulted someone (but also how could you expect someone to change if they're never given a chance). There's also the negative case of someone who has assaulted someone but was never caught, you can't safely eliminate that because there's no record of it.
    • SoftTalker 3y ago
      Assault is also not always what you might imagine. It doesn't require physical harm or even contact. Just putting someone in fear of harm can be assault. E.g. a disagreement getting heated and someone saying "I'm going to kick your ass" is technically assault. As is brandishing a weapon or making other threatening gestures even without physical contact or harm.
      • grinfield22 3y ago
        Technically, sure. But you're not going to sit in prison for years such "technical" cases. So, somebody who did sit must supposedly have done more than that. Second, I rather not have colleagues who are making threatening gestures or threaten to kick someones ass. I'm slightly appalled by the normalization of this kind of behavior.
  • bsder 3y ago
    Criminals who don't reoffend (even for things like assault) within 5 years are almost always statistically a better risk than the public at large. I won't say that it's almost tautological, but it's pretty close. If you can surpass conviction and probation, you are remarkably self-disciplined. Probation conditions are much more problematic than an actual job, and the penalty for failure is going back to jail. A person who can pass that kind of environment is absolutely the kind of person you want working for you.
• technick 3y ago
  I'm mostly on board with your proposal as I've seen a felony speeding conviction stop a friend from getting tech jobs over 5 years after it happened. His situation would have been totally different if he was caught 2 weeks before, it wouldn't have been a felony but the state arbitrarily changed the law. He didn't wreck, cause a wreck, or wasn't participating in street racing.
  • hyperbovine 3y ago
    Was he endangering the lives of others? Was it his first time?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • bombcar 3y ago
    In a case like that it may be worth the cost of the legal fight to get it expunged.
    • jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
      >In a case like that it may be worth the cost of the legal fight to get it expunged. That is presuming they could afford that cost. The effective purposes of the system are to keep the lucrative private prison industry flush and to maintain what Karl Marx called an "army of surplus labor" to keep wages low.
  • smsm42 3y ago
    Wow, a felony? I know in a number of states you can get a misdemeanor for bad speeding, but a felony without harm, or endangering or dui or anything likd that sohnds extremely heavy. Which state is that?
  • minkiebun 3y ago
    was it speeding plus reckless or evading an officer? If not, what state will press felony charges for straight up speeding?
• sneak 3y ago
  I think crimes of violence are relevant to any/all roles. I don’t want to hire or work with anyone who has ever at any point in their life used violence to attempt to solve problems. I am fine with a percentage of human beings being blacklisted permanently from access to much of society. Violence has no place in our world. I won’t even hire former cops. It is, unfortunately, illegal in the US to explicitly avoid hiring ex-military. I don’t really care about whether or not they have “changed their ways” or “grown as a person” - there are lots of people out there to choose from who have never been violent.
  • NegativeLatency 3y ago
    Specifically about violence: people make mistakes, and people change, not everything is black and white. White collar crime/theft and the indirect killing of people through occupational risks (ex black lung from mining), class traitorism (ex being a cop) is a much greater kind of bad than someone who got in a fight or something.
  • User23 3y ago
    Those people who lawfully risk violence to serve the public are why you get to have your fantasy that a world without violence is possible.
  • RickJWagner 3y ago
    That's crazy. Cops prevent violence. Remember when a few cities tried having 'police free zones'? I think it was Portland that had murders within a week. Better re-think that one.
    • bionsystem 3y ago
      That's not what he means, or maybe he does but I didn't see it that way. A cop or a former field military lives in violence day in and day out. Sometimes they even try to cope with substance abuse. Imagine getting in an argument with somebody like that ; I've been there, thankfully he was family and I don't think could hurt me but still, I've been thinking about that for weeks and lost a decent amount of sleep. It's unfortunately the case with tough district/city people with criminal record. Once you live in violence for more than a couple weeks, and have to assume physical threat and retaliate, I'm pretty sure it changes you somewhat fundamentally, and unfortunately those people rarely have the proper support to adjust to civil duties.
• akira2501 3y ago
  It should be like a credit report. If it's been at least 7 years since your last public criminal record, they should then just fall off your "report," and no longer be visible except to the courts. It used to be that you could pay your debt, and unless your crime was infamous, the "memory" of it would fade from society rather quickly. The internet and private databases have definitely hampered this facility and perhaps it should just be regulated with the same forthrightness we apply to credit decisions.
  • PaulHoule 3y ago
    Depends what the crime is. I have a relative who spent time in prison because she tried to kill her mother with an insulin injection who got out and got a job as a nurse working at a nursing home. She lied on her job application about felony convictions but only got found out when her mentally retarded sister showed up at the emergency room with an insulin overdose. It said in the paper she was stealing meds from the controlled substance locker and I believe it because she was stealing her grandson’s ADHD meds too. I believe we should give felons a chance but the above case is one where not doing a background check looks like malpractice.
  • minkiebun 3y ago
    Many companies handle background checks in exactly this manner; it’s common for seven years to be a cutoff where they stop caring.
    • akira2501 3y ago
      Which is excellent, and should make it easy to codify that into law.
      • felon1234567890 3y ago
        Soft on criminals is not usually a vote winner.
      • jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
        Think again. Historically, codifying workers' rights into law requires either a material benefit to powerful employers or decades of brutal sacrifice from working people who risk their lives in mass strikes.
• itomato 3y ago
  We hired a guy who later billed for critical services through a shadow company. He used someone else’s name, resume and identity. He was out of prison for a similar thing. Guess what? There was no background check for the hire nor any vetting of the company. Guess who found him out?
• alberth 3y ago
  > ” I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role” You’d be surprised at how many jobs felons can’t have. Most jobs that need licensing (e.g.,electrician, plumber, even bartender, and many more). As well as security, jobs which relate to firearms and many more. EDIT: for clarity, legally - there are many jobs felons are prohibited from being employed as. So employers have the burden to ensure they only hire legally eligible employees (not hire a felon when not allowed). As such, background checks are how they ensure this.
  • jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
    >You’d be surprised at how many jobs felons canr have. How is that relevant?
• phpisthebest 3y ago
  That would create a complex regulations where everyone if fighting over what is "required for the role" The better, faster and easier solution is a path to quick expungement, this also has the added bonus of offering people an incentive to no re-offend. IMO once you have completed all active punishment (ie you are no longer on parole or probation) your record should be sealed. >>If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work That would actually be illegal under most state laws as most State's have Anti-Black List laws to prohibit such lists from being created.
  • grinfield22 3y ago
    > offering people an incentive to no re-offend. Um, that "incentive" is called not going to jail. Or more generally, behaving like a moral citizen. Just like for everybody else, ex-convict or not. Just because you've been convicted before doesn't mean morals don't apply to you and you need extra candy to behave well. These kinds of arguments are making the case weaker to hire fellons, not stronger.
• jm4 3y ago
  While I agree that people deserve an opportunity to move on from their past, I still want to know who I’m employing. It’s not just about crimes that may be relevant to the role. Who decides what’s relevant? A crime completely unrelated to my business may be very relevant to someone I already employ. I have a small business where people are working in relatively close quarters. I don’t want to put a rapist, stalker or some other kind of predator in there with the young woman I just hired. If there was ever a problem that would be on my conscience. There are all sorts of others I don’t want to deal with either. This is a place where the people I bring in will be around my family, my employees and my customers. I have a responsibility to look out for each of them. All that said, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire someone with a criminal background if the crime is irrelevant or I assess the risk is low. I don’t care if someone got busted with weed or that they got a DUI 10 years ago. I don’t care if it’s a one time crime related to a very specific set of circumstances that’s unlikely to ever repeat. Or a bar fight, drag racing or dozens of other dumb lapses in judgment that can result in serious charges. But I do care that I’m able to make an informed decision.
  • sesteel 3y ago
    The problem exist for corporations as well. A teenage girl, who was a former classmate and friend of my daughter, was murdered at work because she turned down a man's advances. She made formal complaints, but the bureaucratic corporate processes made it difficult to protect her or sufficiently separate her from the harasser/murderer. Even if the state is an at-will state, corporate policies and mismanagement often handcuff those involved to rectify situations before they get out of hand.
• yunesj 3y ago
  It should be up to the employer. If one company thinks that a past conviction is irrelevant while other companies think a past conviction is disqualifying, then the former may get the employee at a better rate, the company will thrive depending on whether they were right, they'll have more resources to hire ex-cons, and other companies will follow suit. A blanket law that forces all companies to hire employees without considering information they think is important is really inefficient. Just recently, governments and people were complaining that rideshare companies weren't being exclusive enough! If you think new laws will find the optimal policy for all companies, you are incorrect! It's also overreaching. Freedom of association is important. The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.
  • candreasen 3y ago
    >The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi. Who cares if they were convicted? That detail is shoehorned in here to make it sound like a good example when it isn't. Neo-nazis are not a protected class, and so the deli owner would be entirely within their rights to not hire someone on that basis, with or without a conviction on their criminal record. And honestly how often do they get convicted of say, a hate crime, that might show up on a background check compared to the number of neo-nazis in the country with clean records, or who get acquitted, etc.?
• csharpminor 3y ago
  Out of curiosity, have you ever been responsible for hiring and managing a team? I say this because my experience of hiring and employing people really shifted my opinion in favor of maximum diligence unfortunately.
• vidoc 3y ago
  > I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to children etc). The very "Once a felon always a felon" thing going on in the united states is a secret life long sentence that completely defeats the idea of redemption.
  • calvinmorrison 3y ago
    It's not controversial, because we've twisted freedom of association, in places people aren't allowed to even have a "Ladies Night" at the bar, chose who the rent to, etc etc etc. Barry Goldwater absolutely and unequivocally warned us of this. Now because that freedom of association, freedom to chose who you do business with does not exist, we think this is reasonable. However, it is not. I own a business. I should not be required to hire anyone I do not want to. Full stop! And it doesn't have to be a race card thing, Say I hate the Iraq war. Say I would like to never hire any veteran who contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi Citizens. Or say I worked with Iraq war veterans in the past and I hate their military attitude. I am not allowed to do so. If I bought a company, I would want to fire all veterans. No, you are not allowed to do so.
    • BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
      I get that, but in this specific case it kinda sucks for you. We shouldn’t be making a system that penalizes offenders for life without explicit sentencing for such. Whether that information is useful to your business is relatively irrelevant to me because denying people proper employment does a lot more harm to them than the harm done to the people in businesses like yours by not penalizing them.
      • calvinmorrison 3y ago
        But you don't get it. you think the government is required to play God in every aspect of the economy, clearly.
• Glawen 3y ago
  it is not controversial, that's how it works in France at least: only you or authorized employers can access your criminal records. I guess it must be common in other european countries.