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
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.

>>yunesj+V61
>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.?