zlacker

>>public+(OP)
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.

If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should have a right to serve their time and change their ways later in life without the state holding and distributing that to any potential employer, practically ensuring that individual is unemployable for a mistake they made in their youth.

The reason I think this is not a good assumption to assume that someone will be a bad employee simply because they did something criminal in their past. There are terrible employees out there who don't break the law. 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. I'd argue this would be more effective if we're concerned an employer might hire a bad employee.

Secondly, making it difficult for those who have committed crimes to get back into the workforce increases their risk of reoffending. Having a good job and a nice life to lose is a great reason to not commit crimes while having nothing to live for is a great excuse to do whatever feels right in the moment.

Best of luck op. If I was an employer I'd consider you if you had the skills and seemed like you could do the job. I have no idea why your past would be relevant to your ability to work outside of select roles.

>>kypro+rK
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-eff...

>>ericpa+hL
> 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”

>>yieldc+KM
Black people commit and are convicted of commiting significantly crime more than white people per capita. Whether this is due to racism, economics, or whatever is irrelevant, but when you can't check specifically for criminal records race becomes an excellent proxy. ~4% of white men will go to jail at some point in their life vs about 28% of black men. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf

That said, sex is also an excellent proxy since men commit far more crime than women. I wonder if women are more likely to get hired when criminal background checks are forbidden?

>>Hideou+761
the article I quoted looked at high school dropouts and the number was 70% for black men. everyone understands that there are supporting statistics, and are simply trying to get the population to be more productive. there was buyin from the public sector in many cities by the voters, but then the private sector who is worried about who they are working with did not buy in. we are still looking for solution about how to get people productive, not whether it is accurate to assume someone has a conviction and be correct.